State of Texas v. Esparza, Carlos
413 S.W.3d 81
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellee arrested after a rear-end accident; officer observed signs of intoxication and summoned a DWI unit. Appellee later took a breath test.
- Appellee moved to suppress all evidence as illegally obtained under the Fourth Amendment and Art. 38.23; he alleged statutory and procedural defects in the breath test (consent, warnings, timing, preservation).
- At the suppression hearing the State called the arresting officer but did not present testimony about the breath-test procedure or scientific reliability; an intox supervisor subpoenaed but not produced.
- Trial court found arrest lawful but granted the motion to suppress the breath-test results because "the State failed to present any testimony regarding the breath test results."
- The State appealed; the court of appeals reversed, concluding the grant could not be sustained on any lawful theory given appellee had not challenged scientific reliability below.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals: Rule 702-based reliability was not a permissible alternate theory to uphold the suppression because appellee never raised it at the suppression hearing and the record was undeveloped on that issue.
Issues
| Issue | Appellee's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly granted suppression because State produced no testimony about breath-test results | Esparza argued absence of State proof at suppression hearing justified suppression of breath-test results | State: burden to prove admissibility/reliability was on Esparza (proponent of suppression); absence of State evidence should not support suppression | Held: Trial court erred to grant suppression on that basis; failure of State to present evidence at suppression hearing normally warrants denial, not grant, of suppression when proponent of suppression bears burden |
| Whether the court of appeals could affirm suppression on an alternate theory of inadmissibility under Rule 702 (scientific reliability) raised first on appeal | Esparza (for the first time on appeal) argued breath-test results were inadmissible under Rule 702 for lack of scientific reliability | State: Rule 702 not raised below; unfair to require State to meet reliability burden on appeal; Calloway rule vs. procedural default conflict | Held: Rule 702 reliability was not a "theory of law applicable to the case" here because appellee did not raise it below and the record was undeveloped; appellate courts should not affirm on an alternate theory that the trial court was never given opportunity to adjudicate |
| Whether Calloway rule (affirm if correct on any applicable theory) required accepting Rule 702 theory on appeal despite no trial objection | Esparza sought benefit of Calloway to salvage suppression via new theory on appeal | State invoked Calloway; appellee argued he should not be required to preserve alternate theories | Held: Calloway does not apply when using it would work manifest injustice by affirming on a theory that required factual development that did not occur below; here that precluded invoking Rule 702 on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (appellate courts may affirm on any legal theory supported by the record — subject to limits)
- Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (framework for admissibility of scientific evidence; trial-court gatekeeping)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (federal standard for admissibility of expert scientific evidence)
- Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Texas Rules of Evidence do not strictly apply at suppression hearings)
- Hailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (explains limits on affirming on alternate theories when trial court lacked opportunity to rule and record is undeveloped)