Kristie Lyn Hermes v. State
05-14-01066-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 19, 2015Background
- Appellant Kristie Lyn Hermes was convicted by a jury of intoxication assault under Tex. Penal Code § 49.07 for causing a one‑vehicle rollover that seriously injured passenger Cesar Franco; sentence suspended and placed on community supervision.
- Crash occurred ~4:00–4:30 a.m.; vehicle rolled multiple times in the median; only Appellant and Franco were at scene.
- Civilians and officers at scene reported Appellant admitted she had been driving and had consumed alcohol and smoked marijuana; she was found near the wreck with head wounds.
- Two blood draws: hospital serum (≈6:30 a.m.) converted to whole‑blood .091 approximately two hours after the crash; later forensic whole‑blood draw at 9:04 a.m. showed .019. Toxicology also showed clonazepam (and hospital‑administered morphine).
- Victim Franco suffered multiple spinal fractures and a brain contusion; treating trauma surgeon testified the contusion and fractured vertebrae constituted serious bodily injury (substantial risk of death and protracted impairment).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Appellant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether corpus delicti was satisfied so Appellant’s extrajudicial admissions may be used to prove she was the driver | Evidence independent of confessions (wreck location, single‑vehicle rollover, injuries to occupants, BAC .091 two hours after crash) makes occurrence of intoxication assault more probable, satisfying corpus delicti | Only Appellant’s statements identified her as driver; absent independent proof of the offense, confession cannot establish identity | Corpus delicti satisfied; confession admissible to prove identity |
| Whether evidence is sufficient to prove Appellant was driving | Appellant admitted at scene and in recorded interview she was driving; victim lacked license and testified Appellant usually drove; no contrary evidence | Argues lack of independent evidence she operated the vehicle | Jury could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt Appellant was the driver |
| Whether evidence shows Appellant was intoxicated while driving (temporal link) | .091 BAC ~2 hours after crash, admissions of recent drinking and marijuana use, presence of clonazepam, single‑vehicle rollover, and officer opinions support intoxication at time of driving | BAC at hospital was below .08 at ~4 hours post‑crash; exact time stopped drinking unknown; causation of rollover not proven | Circumstantial evidence plus BAC and admissions supported a temporal link; sufficient for jury to find intoxication while driving |
| Whether Franco sustained serious bodily injury | Treating surgeon testified to spinal fractures and brain contusion, that a portion of brain died, and that injuries presented substantial risk of death/protracted impairment | Victim downplayed injuries and resumed work; argues pain alone insufficient for "serious bodily injury" | Medical testimony and functional impairment supported finding of serious bodily injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (corpus delicti rule prevents conviction solely on confession; independent evidence of the offense is required)
- Salazar v. State, 86 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (corpus delicti satisfied if some evidence outside confession shows the crime occurred)
- McCann v. State, 433 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (evidence corroborating DWI may be circumstantial; corroboration need not identify the driver)
- Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (temporal nexus for intoxication element can be inferred circumstantially)
- Kirsch v. State, 306 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (post‑accident BAC evidence can be highly probative of intoxication at the time of driving)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (appellate standard: defer to jury on credibility and conflicting evidence)
- Moore v. State, 739 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (discusses sufficiency for "serious bodily injury" and warns against reliance on speculative or hypothetical risks)