Quincy Nunez Reynosa v. State, 14-16-00673-CR

Shortly after midnight a deputy stopped Reynosa for driving into oncoming traffic; deputy observed signs of intoxication and found large alcohol containers in the car.
Reynosa refused some field tests but, after receiving statutory DIC-24 warnings, was recorded in the DWI room and later signed a written consent form at HPD before a nurse drew blood.
Blood test showed BAC 0.196; Reynosa was indicted for third-degree felony DWI (habitual offender) and tried by jury.
Trial court denied Reynosa’s pretrial motion to suppress blood results, finding voluntary consent based on officer testimony, the DWI-room video, the nurse’s audible video, and the signed consent form.
Reynosa requested an Article 38.23 jury instruction to let the jury decide consent before considering the blood-test evidence; the court refused and the jury convicted. Sentence: 30 years (court-assessed punishment).
After verdict the State disclosed that its toxicology witness had misstated her degree (Brady disclosure); Reynosa did not timely amend his motion for new trial to raise a Brady claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing an Art. 38.23 jury instruction on consent to a warrantless blood draw	Reynosa: the DWI-room video shows him shaking his head, creating an evidentiary dispute about consent that must go to the jury	State: officer testimony, the audible nurse video, and a signed consent form provide uncontradicted evidence of consent; no affirmative conflict exists	Court: No error — no affirmative evidence contradicted officer/nurse testimony and signed consent, so Art. 38.23 instruction not required
Whether the State’s post-trial Brady disclosure about the expert’s misstated credentials requires relief	Reynosa: the false testimony undermined the expert’s credibility and was material to guilt	State: disclosure was timely under the new-trial deadline; defendant failed to preserve the Brady claim by not amending his motion for new trial	Court: Waived — Reynosa failed to raise the Brady issue in the trial court or file an amended motion for new trial, so appellate review is barred

Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (two-step jury-charge error review)
Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Article 38.23 instruction requires affirmative evidence creating a contested fact)
Hamal v. State, 390 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (elements for entitlement to Article 38.23 instruction)
Weems v. State, 493 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (drawing blood is a Fourth Amendment search)
Gonzales v. State, 369 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable absent exception)
McGee v. State, 105 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (consent is a warrant exception)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (preserving Brady claims via a timely motion for new trial)