Pedro Elizondo Martinez, Jr. v. State
03-14-00802-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 10, 2015Background
- Martinez was tried for DWI (third-or-more) and indicted with an allegation that he used his vehicle as a deadly weapon; jury convicted and found the deadly-weapon allegation true; punishment: 17 years.
- Incident: single-vehicle collision after Martinez hydroplaned into a retaining wall; Martinez was uninjured and refused field sobriety tests; no breath or blood test was obtained.
- Investigating officers arrived after the crash; officer testimony suggested light traffic and that vehicles "can" cause serious injury, but no direct evidence anyone else was endangered at the time.
- Officer Cochran (lead investigator) concluded hydroplaning caused the crash and that Martinez reacted properly; his report listed alcohol and speed as possible contributing factors but Cochran did not witness the crash.
- Officer McDonald testified (over defense objection) about a separate 2012 incident in which an intoxicated driver seriously injured a constable at or near the same highway location; defense argued the testimony was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of deadly-weapon finding | State: evidence (hydroplaning after drinking, time/day, traffic level, report listing alcohol/speed) supports submitting and finding vehicle used as deadly weapon | Martinez: evidence shows hydroplaning not caused by his conduct, low-level intoxication, no traffic-law violations, no proof any person was endangered — insufficient as a matter of law | At trial court: denied defense directed verdict; jury returned guilty and found deadly-weapon allegation true; appellant asks appellate deletion of finding or reversal |
| Admission of McDonald testimony about injured constable | State: testimony shows motor vehicles can cause serious injury and supports deadly-weapon allegation | Martinez: testimony concerns a different incident/people/time and is irrelevant and highly prejudicial under Rules 401/403 | At trial court: objection overruled and testimony admitted; appellant argues admission was abuse of discretion and requests reversal and new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson sufficiency standard application)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Sierra v. State, 280 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (two-part test for vehicle-as-deadly-weapon: manner of use and capability to cause serious injury; requires evidence others were endangered)
- Mann v. State, 58 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (vehicle can be deadly weapon when other motorists were actually endangered)
- Drichas v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (examples of driving constituting use of vehicle as deadly weapon; requires evidence of actual endangerment)
- Cates v. State, 102 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (insufficiency where record does not show presence of others on roadway)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (test for relevance and Rule 403 balancing)