Monika Lyn Saenz v. State
474 S.W.3d 47
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Early morning March 9, 2013, Monika Saenz struck and killed Jose Torres, Jr.; she was stopped shortly after with observable signs of intoxication and later had a blood draw showing BAC ≈ .172 (drawn at least an hour after the crash).
- Autopsy toxicology showed Torres’s BAC was .172 and that he had used marijuana and cocaine earlier.
- Saenz was tried and convicted of intoxication manslaughter and accident involving injury or death; sentences run concurrently (20 and 10 years). She appealed.
- At trial the court excluded Torres’s toxicology report as irrelevant/prejudicial; the jury charge included an abstract concurrent-causation instruction but omitted an application paragraph applying that defense to the facts.
- Saenz’s sole defense was concurrent causation: that Torres’s intoxication/walking in the roadway was clearly sufficient to cause his death and Saenz’s intoxication was clearly insufficient.
- The appellate court found the omission of an application paragraph and the exclusion of Torres’s BAC erroneous and that the exclusion effectively prevented Saenz from presenting her defense as to intoxication manslaughter.
Issues
| Issue | Saenz’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court failed to apply concurrent-causation law to facts (jury charge) | Jury should have been instructed to acquit if Torres’s conduct was clearly sufficient and Saenz’s clearly insufficient | Omission was not reversible error (but conceded preservation) | Reversed manslaughter conviction; omission was error and caused some harm; application paragraph should have been included |
| Exclusion of decedent’s BAC (.172) | BAC was relevant to concurrent-causation defense and to show Torres was a danger to himself/others (public intoxication) | Toxicology was irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial absent an opinion linking BAC to impairment | Exclusion was abuse of discretion and constitutional error because it denied Saenz ability to present statutory defense; reversal required |
| Harmlessness of charge/evidence errors | Errors were harmful because concurrent causation was sole defense and charged jury lacked required factual application | Errors did not warrant reversal | Court could not say beyond a reasonable doubt error did not contribute to conviction; remand for new trial on manslaughter count |
| Conviction for accident involving injury/death | (No contest to this issue on appeal) | State upheld conviction | Affirmed conviction for accident involving injury or death |
Key Cases Cited
- Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (accused has right to instruction on any defensive issue raised by evidence)
- Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (standards for charge error review; harm analysis)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (egregious-harm/some-harm framework for jury-charge error)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (Rule 403: presumption favoring admissibility of relevant evidence)
- Wiley v. State, 74 S.W.3d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (exclusion of evidence may be constitutional error if it prevents presentation of defensive theory)
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)