Pointe v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 4295
Tex. App.2012Background
- Pointe was convicted of driving with a child passenger while intoxicated and sentenced to ten years in prison.
- Evidence showed Pointe had alcohol in his vehicle, performed poorly on field sobriety indicators, and refused blood/urine tests.
- Witnesses described Pointe’s statements about beer consumption and the crash timing; Richter claimed she did not see the other vehicle.
- A deputy and Trooper Brady testified to signs of intoxication; Brady performed an HGN test and other observations, though not perfectly.
- The judgment contained clerical errors later corrected on appeal; the appellate court affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying appointment of an expert | Pointe asserts need for an expert under Ake factors to rebut State’s evidence. | State contends no threshold showing; defense offered undeveloped assertions without affidavits. | Denied; no high risk of inaccurate verdict; no threshold showing met. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for DWI with a child and for the deadly weapon finding | Evidence supports intoxication and use of vehicle could cause harm. | Evidence insufficient to prove intoxication or to satisfy the deadly weapon causation. | Sufficient to convict for DWI with a child; deadly weapon finding not supported by evidence. |
| Whether admission of certain evidentiary testimony was error | Brady’s testimony on HGN and related evidence was admissible and important. | Brady’s methodology and expertise were flawed and not properly vouched for; hearsay concerns. | Any error did not substantially affect rights; evidence still supported conviction; errors deemed harmless. |
| Clerical errors in the judgment | Judgment misstates degree and enhancement findings; request to reflect state jail felony and true findings. | Agree reform is needed to reflect true findings and plea status. | Judgment modified to state state jail felony, reflect true pleadings to enhancements, delete deadly weapon finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing evidence sufficiency)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (deference to jury on weight/credibility; standard for sufficiency review)
- Griffith v. State, 55 S.W.3d 598 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) (refusal to take blood-alcohol test relevant to intoxication)
- Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (threshold showing required for appointment of experts)
- Jimenez v. State, 364 S.W.3d 866 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012) (high risk of inaccurate verdict when expert help is necessary; threshold analysis)
- Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (harmless-error standard; when error does not affect substantial rights)
- Plouff v. State, 192 S.W.3d 213 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (variations in HGN test affect weight, not admissibility)