Monika Lyn Saenz v. State
14-14-00841-CR
Tex.Aug 13, 2015Background
- In March 2013 Monika Saenz struck and killed Jose Torres, Jr.; she was arrested and a blood draw showed a BAC of .172 (drawn >1 hour after collision).
- An autopsy toxicology report showed Torres’s BAC was .172 and that he had used marijuana and cocaine prior to death.
- Saenz was tried and convicted of intoxication manslaughter and of failing to stop/render aid; sentences were concurrent (20 and 10 years). She appealed.
- At trial the court excluded Torres’s toxicology report as irrelevant/prejudicial, and the jury charge included an abstract concurrent-causation instruction but omitted an application paragraph applying that law to the facts.
- Saenz’s sole defense at trial was concurrent causation: that Torres’s intoxicated conduct was clearly sufficient to cause his death and Saenz’s conduct was clearly insufficient; exclusion of Torres’s BAC harmed that defense.
- The court reversed and remanded Saenz’s intoxication-manslaughter conviction (but affirmed the accident/leave-scene conviction), holding the omission of the application paragraph and exclusion of Torres’s BAC were errors requiring reversal for that count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Saenz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to include a concurrent-causation application paragraph in jury charge | No reversible error; abstract instruction was sufficient or error was harmless | Omission denied Saenz instruction on a defensive issue raised by the evidence | Error: trial court should have applied concurrent-causation law to facts; preserved objection; omission caused "some harm" — conviction reversed/remanded for intoxication manslaughter |
| 2. Exclusion of decedent's toxicology (Torres’s BAC .172) | Evidence was irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial; existing testimony about drinking sufficed | BAC was directly relevant to concurrent-causation defense and public-intoxication inference; exclusion prevented presentation of defense | Error and abuse of discretion to exclude; exclusion was constitutional error because it went to the heart of defense; reversal required |
| 3. Harmless/egregious-harm review of charge error | (State argued preserved or not; harmless) | Saenz argued omission caused egregious harm | Court treated error as preserved and found "some harm"; remand required |
| 4. Ineffective assistance and suppression of Saenz’s blood draw (other issues not reached) | State defended convictions | Saenz raised these but court declined to reach after finding dispositive errors | Not addressed on merits due to reversal on above errors |
Key Cases Cited
- Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (accused entitled to instruction on defensive issue raised by evidence)
- Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (standard for charge error review and harm analysis)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (harm standards for jury-charge error)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (Rule 403 probative vs. prejudicial balancing; presumption favoring admissibility)
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)