State v. Carlos Esparza
353 S.W.3d 276
Tex. App.2011Background
- Esparza charged with misdemeanor DWI (per se and impairment) following an arrest December 6, 2009.
- Esparza moved to suppress police video and intoxilyzer breath-test results as fruits of unlawful seizure.
- Trial court suppressed breath-test results due to the State's failure to present reliability testimony; video admission remained unresolved.
- State sought continuance to obtain intox supervisor; cross-examination of that witness was desired but not clearly justified.
- Appellate court held no theory supported suppression of breath-test results; reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment seizure invalidity. | Esparza contends breath-test results were fruits of unlawful seizure. | State argues confinement was lawful due to accident investigation and no unlawful seizure. | No suppression on Fourth Amendment grounds; seizure found lawful. |
| Deemed consent and detention under §724.011. | Breath-test suppression due to illegal detention and no deemed consent. | Detention deemed lawful; consent framework satisfied. | No suppression based on consent/detention theory. |
| Warning under §724.015 and spontaneous consent. | Officers failed to warn arresting officer required by §724.015. | State had burden but failed to show reliability; error not preserved. | No suppression based on lack of warning. |
| Consent to breath test and voluntariness. | Esparza did not voluntarily and intelligently consent to breath test. | No evidence showing lack of voluntary consent; burden not met. | No suppression for lack of voluntariness. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 306 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (upholds trial rulings supported by record even if reason faulty)
- Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (admission of evidence upheld if theory correct despite judge's reasoning)
- Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (precise, timely objections required to exclude evidence)
- Mata v. State, 46 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (factors for reliability of retrograde-extrapolation testimony)
- Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (breath-test results generally admissible even with delays)
- Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (due process and preservation of breath specimens not required)