Richard Anthony Baldez v. State
386 S.W.3d 324
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Baldez was stopped at 11:19 p.m. for driving without headlights at night on a freeway in Bexar County, Texas.
- Officer Rubio observed bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and odor of alcohol; Baldez admitted drinking.
- Baldez performed three SFSTs showing intoxication; arrest followed.
- Intoxilyzer results were .165 at 12:06 a.m. and .170 at 12:09 a.m.; charged with DWI.
- Baldez sought to impeach Rubio with the officer’s disciplinary history; trial court barred cross-examination.
- Baldez then filed a bill of exception; a disciplinary suspension record for Rubio was admitted on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by probable cause | Baldez argues the stop lacked probable cause. | Baldez contends the stop was improper due to lack of headlights and nighttime conditions. | Stop reasonable; probable cause supported by nighttime headlight violation. |
| Whether the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination of Rubio about disciplinary suspension | Baldez sought to impeach Rubio's credibility with the disciplinary report. | Rule 608(b) limits specific instances of conduct; not admissible to attack general credibility. | No abuse of discretion; cross-examination limited appropriately. |
| Whether there was a Brady violation for nondisclosure of the disciplinary suspension | Disciplinary report was exculpatory evidence missing from defense. | No Brady violation; report disclosed and admissible only if proper under rules; may not have been admissible impeachment evidence. | No Brady violation; even if admitted, no reasonable probability of different outcome; thus no new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (temporary traffic stops valid with probable cause regardless of motive)
- Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (reasonable stop for traffic violation remains valid when based on objective facts)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (limits on cross-examining witnesses to attack credibility; focus on bias/interest)