Jose Miguel Garcia Villareal v. State
04-15-00290-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 17, 2016Background
- Villarreal was charged with misdemeanor DWI after an officer observed his vehicle take a sharp right curve from Stone Oak onto the 1604 access road at a high rate of speed late at night; officer reported hearing screeching tires and seeing the car "jerk" and nearly hit a yield sign.
- Officer Portillo followed Villarreal through heavy highway traffic for several minutes for officer safety before initiating a traffic stop on the ground that Villarreal failed to make the turn in a reasonable and prudent manner.
- Villarreal moved to suppress evidence from the stop (including the videotape and blood test results); the trial court denied suppression after an evidentiary hearing where the officer’s credibility was credited over the passenger’s contrary testimony.
- After a jury trial Villarreal was convicted of DWI; sentence suspended and one year community supervision imposed; he appealed raising suppression, continuance, and evidentiary errors.
- On appeal the court reviewed reasonableness of the stop under the objective reasonable-suspicion standard, reviewed the continuance for abuse of discretion, and reviewed evidentiary rulings (field test testimony and blood-report admission) for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Villarreal's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion for traffic stop | Officer lacked reasonable suspicion; five-minute delay and officer’s own testimony show only a hunch | Officer observed screeching tires, jerking, near striking yield sign, and erratic high-speed turn — objective facts supporting reasonable suspicion | Stop was supported by reasonable suspicion; suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in granting oral continuance to translate Spanish on video | Continuance was unnecessary and prejudicial (speedy-trial claim) because translation not used at trial | State needed translation and translator was unavailable; continuance was equitable and within court’s discretion | No abuse of discretion; appellant showed no actual prejudice and did not assert speedy-trial right below |
| Whether officer improperly correlated walk-and-turn clues to precise BAC > .08 | Officer impermissibly quantified BAC from field-test performance | Officer only testified number of clues and that two clues indicate intoxication (legal limit), not a precise BAC | No Emerson violation; testimony admissible to show intoxication, not exact BAC |
| Whether blood-alcohol report was admissible without nurse who drew blood testifying (chain of custody) | Chain of custody incomplete because nurse deceased and officer did not read vial labels or directly identify vials at trial | Officer witnessed draw, labeling, sealing, and storage; lab chief received intact vials with defendant’s name and tested them — establishes beginning and end of chain | Admission proper; testimony established beginning and end of chain and gaps go to weight, not admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (reasonable-suspicion review and Terry stop standards)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (framework for investigative stops)
- Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763 (reasonable suspicion articulation under Texas law)
- Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (objective reasonable-suspicion standard / disregard officer’s subjective intent)
- Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759 (limits on correlating field sobriety test performance to precise BAC)
- Mitchell v. State, 419 S.W.3d 655 (chain-of-custody standards for blood evidence; beginning and end of chain sufficient)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (gaps in chain of custody affect weight, not admissibility absent tampering)
- Durrett v. State, 36 S.W.3d 205 (officer who observed blood draw can lay predicate without nurse testifying)
- Stoker v. State, 788 S.W.2d 1 (chain-of-custody principles where laboratory testing occurs)
- Dixon v. State, 151 S.W.3d 271 (delay between observed violation and stop relevant to reasonable-suspicion analysis; facts-matter distinction)