Karen Jaye Michalec v. State
01-15-00721-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- At ~2:00 a.m., Needville PD stopped Karen Jaye Michalec after she failed to stop at a flashing red light; she had no license or insurance.
- Officer smelled a strong odor of alcohol; Michalec admitted drinking "a few" (four to five) drinks.
- Officer observed glassy eyes, slurred speech, and swaying; Michalec performed poorly on standard field sobriety tests.
- Officer concluded she had lost the normal use of her faculties and detained her for DWI; vehicle and body-cam videos corroborated many observations.
- At trial, after the State rested, Michalec sought to present a voice exemplar (reading sentences) to rebut the officer’s testimony about slurred speech but requested to do so without submitting to cross-examination; the trial court denied the request unless she opened herself to cross-examination.
- Jury convicted Michalec of Class B DWI; she was sentenced per agreement to 19 days in jail (1 day credit). Michalec appealed, arguing the denial violated her Fifth Amendment privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant waived Fifth Amendment privilege by offering a voice exemplar and thus could introduce it without subjecting herself to cross-examination | Michalec: A voice exemplar is non‑testimonial under Williams, so introducing one does not waive the Fifth Amendment and she should not be forced to submit to cross‑examination | State: Trial court’s ruling was proper and, even if error, Michalec was not harmed; issue of harm inadequately briefed | Assuming without deciding the court may have erred, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming other evidence; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 116 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (voice exemplars are non‑testimonial and ordinarily do not waive the Fifth Amendment)
- Williams v. State, 145 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (discussing harm analysis when voice‑exemplar admission is contested)
- Harmon v. State, 167 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (harm analysis for denial of voice exemplar relief)
- Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (constitutional error reversible only if it contributed to conviction; harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard)
- Rubio v. State, 241 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (assessing whether error materially affected jury’s deliberations)