Michael Channing McCann v. State, 433 S.W.3d 642

At ~2:00 a.m., police were dispatched after a report of a man wandering near a commercial building; officers found McCann nearby with slurred speech and unsteady stance.
McCann told officers he had been drinking at a family member’s, argued with his brother, left, got lost, drove off the road, and hit something; he accompanied an officer to locate the vehicle.
Officers found McCann’s maroon Nissan Altima ~300–400 yards away in a median, front end against a tree, deployed airbags, and a hood warmer than ambient temperature; McCann acknowledged the vehicle was his.
Officers observed signs of intoxication (odor of alcohol, red/watery eyes, slurred speech); field sobriety tests showed failure on HGN, walk-and-turn, and one-leg stand; McCann declined a breath test.
McCann complained of chest and wrist pain consistent with airbag deployment; officers testified there were no other pedestrians or nearby alcohol-selling establishments.
Trial court convicted McCann of DWI; he appealed arguing legally insufficient evidence that he operated the vehicle while intoxicated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (McCann)	Held
Whether corpus delicti was satisfied to corroborate McCann’s extrajudicial statements	Physical and circumstantial evidence (vehicle in median, warm hood, deployed airbags, injuries, proximity, ownership admission, no other persons present) corroborate his confession	Confession alone is insufficient; no direct witness saw him driving	Corpus delicti satisfied — independent evidence made commission of DWI more probable than without it
Whether evidence was sufficient to show McCann operated the vehicle while intoxicated (temporal link)	Circumstantial evidence (recent crash, warm hood, intoxication signs at scene, failed SFSTs, no other drivers nearby, admission he drank then drove) establishes temporal link	No evidence showing intoxication at the time he was driving; officers did not see him drive	Evidence sufficient to permit inference McCann drove while intoxicated; conviction affirmed

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Jackson is the sole standard for sufficiency review)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial and direct evidence treated equally; appellate deference to factfinder)
Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (temporal link between driving and intoxication may be established by circumstantial evidence)
Salazar v. State, 86 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (corpus delicti rule requires some corroboration of a confession)
Rawls v. State, 318 S.W.2d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 1958) (presence at scene, ownership, and hot engine corroborated confession of driving)
Weems v. State, 328 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010) (recent presence near crash and lack of other potential drivers supports DWI inference)