Michael Anthony McGruder v. State
10-13-00109-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 27, 2016Background
- Michael McGruder was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated and sentenced to 30 years in prison under Tex. Penal Code § 49.04.
- At trial McGruder objected to admission of the blood draw kit and vial, arguing Texas Transportation Code § 724.012 was unconstitutional; he renewed that objection when the lab report was offered.
- A forensic chemist testified (without objection) that McGruder’s blood alcohol concentration was .09 g/100 ml prior to the lab report being admitted.
- The court of appeals initially affirmed, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated and remanded, suggesting the court consider whether curative admissibility (i.e., same facts proven by unobjected evidence) applies.
- On remand the State briefed the curative-admissibility argument; McGruder declined to file a supplemental brief.
- The court held that because the chemist’s unobjected-to testimony established the BAC, any error in admitting the blood kit/vial or lab report was rendered harmless under the doctrine that improper evidence is not reversible error when the same fact was proven by unobjected testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of blood evidence given challenge to § 724.012 | McGruder: § 724.012 is unconstitutional; blood kit/vial and lab report should be excluded | State: Even if blood evidence was objectionable, the chemist’s unobjected testimony established the BAC, curing any error | Court: Held no reversible error because the same fact (BAC) was established by unobjected testimony; issue overruled |
| Preservation of error | McGruder: Renewed earlier objection to lab report preserves complaint | State: Did not object to chemist’s oral testimony, so error not preserved as reversible | Court: Error, if any, is not reversible because unobjected testimony proved same fact |
| Applicability of curative-admissibility doctrine | McGruder: Admission of physical evidence and report were improper due to statute | State: Curative admissibility applies; erroneous admission harmless when same facts proved by other admissible testimony | Court: Applied curative-admissibility; no reversal required |
| Need to address appellate preservation before reversal | McGruder: N/A (declined supplement) | State: Court should consider preservation per CCA guidance | Court: Complied with CCA suggestion and resolved preservation issue against McGruder |
Key Cases Cited
- McGruder v. State, 475 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014) (court of appeals’ earlier decision affirming conviction)
- McGruder v. State, 483 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (Court of Criminal Appeals vacated and remanded, suggesting consideration of curative admissibility)
- Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (erroneous admission of evidence is not reversible if same fact proven by unobjected testimony)
- Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (no reversible error when unobjected evidence renders objectionable evidence harmless)
- Gipson v. State, 383 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (appellate courts must address error-preservation issues before reversing)
- Robinson v. State, 790 S.W.2d 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (procedural guidance on appellate briefing and supplementation)