Smith, William A/K/A Bill Smith
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 89
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Trooper stopped appellant for no seatbelt, detected strong alcohol odor and signs of intoxication during field sobriety tests; appellant arrested.
- Officer learned appellant had two prior DWI convictions and ordered a mandatory, warrantless blood draw under Tex. Health & Safety Code § 724.012; blood drawn at hospital showed BAC .21.
- At trial (bench), the DPS forensic analyst testified to the .21 result; defense objected to admission of the blood vial and on constitutional grounds (warrantless blood draw), and requested a written/order; the judge said he would “carry” the constitutional issue and admitted the blood exhibit.
- Defense moved for instructed verdict, asserting the blood was illegally seized without a court order; motion denied. Judge relied heavily on the .21 result in finding guilt.
- On appeal the court of appeals reversed, holding the warrantless blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment. The State sought review arguing error was not preserved because no ruling was obtained on the Fourth Amendment objection.
- The Court (majority) reversed the court of appeals: defendant failed to preserve the Fourth Amendment complaint because he never obtained a ruling on the objection and did not object when the expert repeatedly testified to the BAC results.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant preserved his Fourth Amendment objection to a warrantless mandatory blood draw for appeal | Appellant failed to preserve error because no ruling on the Fourth Amendment objection was obtained before evidence was admitted and defendant never obtained a ruling later | In a bench trial, timing of obtaining a ruling is less critical; the trial judge knew the constitutional complaint, implicitly ruled, and later relied on the blood evidence — preserving error | Reversed court of appeals; error not preserved — appellant failed to obtain a ruling on the admission issue and failed to object to repeated testimony of BAC results |
| Whether admission of the blood vial/testimony violated Fourth Amendment | (State) Officer acted under statute § 724.012; no judicial order required; evidence admissible | (Smith) Warrantless blood draw violated Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure protections; evidence should be suppressed | Court did not reach the Fourth Amendment merits because of preservation failure |
| Whether a ruling on instructed verdict suffices as a ruling on evidence admission | (State) Ruling on instructed verdict is distinct and does not equal a ruling on admissibility | (Smith) Denial of instructed verdict and judge’s reliance on blood evidence amount to implicit ruling on admissibility | Held: Ruling on instructed verdict is not a substitute for an evidentiary ruling for preservation purposes |
| Whether admission of expert testimony of BAC after objections was harmless or preserved | (State) Even if vial admission was problematic, identical BAC testimony was unobjected-to and proves same fact; improper admission of testimony is harmless if same fact proven elsewhere | (Smith) Objected to admission of the vial and overall constitutionality; later testimony should not circumvent preservation | Held: Defendant failed to object to three instances of BAC testimony; where same fact is proven by unobjected testimony, erroneous admission of evidence may not require reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (rule that preserving error requires a ruling on the objection or objection to refusal)
- Darty v. State, 709 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (admission of evidence without precise record ruling does not preserve error absent an adverse ruling)
- Moff v. State, 131 S.W.3d 485 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (distinguishing evidentiary error from sufficiency challenges)
- Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (directed verdict challenge treated as sufficiency issue)
- Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (legal standards for sufficiency challenges)
- Soliz v. State, 432 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (erroneously admitted testimony not reversible if same fact proved by unobjected testimony)
- Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (historic rule that misadmitted testimony may be harmless where other evidence proves same fact)
- Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (implicit rulings can be recognized where context shows trial court decided the issue)
- Douds v. State, 472 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (preservation requires sufficient specificity to place trial court on notice of the constitutional claim)