Rice, Alfred Lee
PD-1505-15
| Tex. App. | Dec 28, 2015Background
- Rice was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and intoxication manslaughter in Midland County; sentences run concurrently.
- At trial, witnesses described high-speed driving and a collision at Lamesa Rd and Walnut St; Harmon died, Hearne injured.
- Rice’s BAC tested at hospital was around 0.27; blood drawn without explicit consent and without a warrant.
- Officers testified to alcohol odor and slurred speech; multiple tests and a serum test showed high BAC.
- Rice appealed to the Eleventh Court of Appeals; the court affirmed. PDR filed to Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insufficiency of evidence for intoxication manslaughter | Rice contends no proof of intoxication at time of driving. | State argues temporal link shown; circumstantial evidence suffices. | Evidence sufficient beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Warrantless blood draw admissibility | Blood draw without consent or warrant violated Fourth Amendment. | Testimony and medical records render error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | Harmless error; conviction affirmed. |
| Prosecutorial bolstering and closing arguments | State engaged in improper bolstering and opinion-based remarks. | Appellant failed to preserve error (no timely objection). | Issues waived; arguments not reversible. |
| Conflict with state/federal law on closing arguments | Prosecutor's comments violated Ester and related precedents. | Court should review for harmless error and misconduct. | Waived; no reversal based on closing arguments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mata v. State, 46 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (retrograde extrapolation of BAC; factors affect time of intoxication)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (due process standard for proof beyond reasonable doubt)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency review standard for criminal conviction)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (implied consent and urgent circumstances in blood draws)
- Ester v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1965) (prosecutor must avoid prejudicial, improper comments)
- Temple v. State, 342 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments)