Phillip Brandon Adkins v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 15110
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Adkins was convicted of driving while intoxicated in Harris County, Texas.
- He was stopped around 2:30 a.m. after officers observed weaving and other indicia of intoxication.
- Adkins refused field sobriety tests and to voluntarily provide blood or breath samples; police obtained a search warrant for blood.
- A registered nurse drew Adkins’ blood in a hospital room; the procedure was videotaped and Betadine was used to clean the area.
- Blood analysis showed BAC of .180, exceeding the statutory limit for DWI; he was convicted by a jury.
- On appeal, Adkins challenges the blood draw, Confrontation Clause, Kelly reliability, and a Geesa jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the blood draw a reasonable Fourth Amendment search? | Adkins contends the blood draw was unreasonable due to nurse qualifications and procedure. | Adkins argues the warrant-based draw should be scrutinized for environment and custodian qualifications. | The blood draw was reasonable under Fourth Amendment. |
| Did the Confrontation Clause require crossing-examination of the nurse who drew the blood? | Bullcoming/Burch expansion requires confronting the blood-draw nurse. | Nurse testimony not necessary; analyst’s testimony suffices for confrontation purposes. | Confrontation rights not violated; analyst testified and was cross-examined. |
| Did the blood-test evidence meet the Kelly reliability test? | If the technique was improperly applied, evidence should be excluded under Kelly. | Procedures were properly followed; no clotting or SOP deviations. | Blood-test evidence admitted; Kelly reliability met. |
| Was the first sentence of Paragraph [4] of the Geesa instruction improperly given and, if so, harmless? | Including Paragraph [4] definition of reasonable doubt was error under Paulson. | If error occurred, it should be analyzed for harm. | Yes, the first sentence was error, but harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (de novo review of reasonableness for searches with warrants)
- State v. Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (totality-of-the-circumstances in warrant-based searches)
- Johnston v. State, 336 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Schmerber framework for blood draws)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (historical framework for warrant-based blood draws)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (blood-draw reasonableness under totality of circumstances)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (Confrontation Clause requires testifying analyst for forensic reports)
- Burch v. State, 401 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (surrogate testimony cannot satisfy Confrontation Clause for forensic reports)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (confrontation concerns for testimonial forensic statements)
- Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (limits on Geesa instruction components; proper to exclude certain paragraphs)
- Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (Geese instruction critique; preferred approach when agreement lacking)
- Rodriguez v. State, 96 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (context on jury instruction review and harm analysis)
- Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (mandatory Geesa six-paragraph framework (limited use post-Woods/Paulson))