Scillitani v. State
343 S.W.3d 914
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Brassard Scillitani was convicted of driving while intoxicated after a single-vehicle wreck; he admitted driving and the vehicle left the road into a ditch, hitting a fence pole; there was no skid mark and the officer detected alcohol on his breath.
- Field sobriety tests yielded multiple intoxication clues; a preliminary breath test proved alcohol on his breath.
- Two breath samples from an Intoxilyzer were 0.135 at 3:32 a.m. and 0.133 at 3:35 a.m.
- Trial court denied a motion to suppress the breath-test results; the jury convicted and sentenced Appellant to jail time and a fine.
- On remand, the court addressed whether the evidence suffices to prove driving while intoxicated and whether the breath-test suppression ruling was proper; the court affirmed on both issues.
- The analysis discussed whether intoxication at the scene and the single-vehicle nature of the accident establish a temporal link to driving.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to prove driving while intoxicated | Scillitani—relying on Kuciemba—that intoxication at the scene suffices, with temporal link considerations | State—contrary to Johnson, Kuciemba overrules Johnson and supports temporal link in this case | Evidence sufficient to prove driving while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress breath-test evidence | Scillitani—breath test procedure did not meet DPS rules (reference-sample temperature not checked) | State—breath test complied with current DPS rules as temperature requirement no longer applies | Breath-test results admissible; no error in denying suppression. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 517 S.W.2d 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (insufficient evidence when no evidence of time or causation of accident)
- Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (intoxication at scene is circumstantial evidence of DWI; overruled Johnson implicitly to extent conflicting)
- Blackman v. State, 580 N.W.2d 546 (Neb. 1998) (driving intoxicated inferred from intoxication at scene in single-vehicle crash)
- Reynolds v. State, 204 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (breath-test scientific theory and admissibility framework)
- Stevenson v. State, 895 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (presumption of admissibility for properly conducted breath tests)
- Mireles v. Texas Dep’t of Public Safety, 9 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 1999) (breath-testing procedure admissibility framework under DPS rules)