Somers v. State, 333 S.W.3d 747

Somers was convicted of intoxication manslaughter after a fraternity party disturbance; vehicle collision killed Michelle Briggs; Somers arrested for DWI after officer observed impairment; DPS blood tests initially screened positive for cocaine/amphetamines but confirmation GC test was negative; blood sample preservation issues raised; defense sought to admit EMIT/GC results and statements tying Briggs’s death to cocaine use.
Evidence issues centered on drug testing of Briggs (EMIT screening positive, GC confirmation negative), preservation concerns, and Brady disclosure obligations.
Trial court excluded EMIT results; defense argued they supported a heart-attack theory linked to cocaine use; trial proceeded with other evidence.
During trial, autopsy report was admitted via treating physician rather than medical examiner; Crawford confrontation concerns were raised but not ultimately dispositive.
Somers claimed ineffective assistance for not pursuing alternate driver theory and argued newly discovered evidence; evidence indicated another driver may not be implicated; movant failed to show reasonable probability of different result.
Somers raised multiple sentencing-related arguments and juror-questioning issues, but the court found no reversible error in those areas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady/Brady disclosure of GC results	Somers contends DPS withheld GC results favorable to defense.	Somers argues Brady violation due to undisclosed negative GC test.	No Brady violation; records disclosed; trace cocaine not decisively positive.
Exclusion of EMIT/GC results and statements against interest	Somers argues EMIT/GC and employer statements support defense.	Court excludes due to lack of reliable nexus and hearsay concerns.	No abuse of discretion; EMIT not reliable without confirmation; statement not against interest.
Autopsy report admissibility (Confrontation Clause)	Autopsy report was key to Briggs's death causation; Crawford issue.	Treating physician testimony sufficed; confrontation clause not violated.	Court ruling upheld; admission via treating physician cured any error.
Ineffective assistance—alternate driver and new evidence	Somers argues counsel failed to explore another driver; newly discovered evidence.	Evidence already available; no reasonable probability of different result.	No ineffective assistance; evidence insufficient for different outcome.
Evidence of blood alcohol (probable cause and search)	Challenge suppression of blood evidence under transportation code.	Officer had probable cause to arrest and obtain blood; statute complied.	Blood evidence properly admitted.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (due process requires disclosure of favorable evidence)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality of undisclosed evidence; reasonable probability of different outcome)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (duty to learn of favorable evidence known by others acting for government)
Webb v. State, 232 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard for materiality under Brady in Texas)
Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (evidence-preservation and cure of error)
Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Hart v. State, 15 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2000) (Rule 606(b) limitations on juror testimony)
Hines v. State, 3 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. App. Waco 1999) (juror testimony not admissible to show outside influence)
Stephenson v. State, 226 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2007) (due-process considerations in expert evidence)
Cuadros-Fernandez v. State, 316 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. App. Dallas 2009) (due process in exclusion of expert testimony)
Dietz v. State, 123 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003) (due-process concerns with exclusion of expert testimony)
Kelly v. State, No. 14-09-00166-CR, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 4506 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (due-process impact of evidentiary exclusions)