State v. Robinson
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 391
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Robinson was arrested for DWI without a warrant and taken to a hospital where his blood was drawn after consent; BAC was 0.14%.
- Robinson moved to suppress the blood evidence under Fourth Amendment and Article 38.23 on grounds of lack of warrant/consent and allegedly an unqualified person drawing the blood.
- Trial court initially allowed suppression on the basis that the blood draw was not shown to be performed by a qualified person, despite a Fourth Amendment finding no suppression grounds.
- The State stipulated to the warrantless arrest, and the only witness could not identify who drew the blood, leading to contested credibility on whether a statutory violation occurred.
- Court of Appeals affirmed suppression ruling; the State challenged the allocation of burden of proof for Article 38.23 suppression.
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the defendant bears the initial burden to produce evidence of a statutory violation; the State bears the burden to prove compliance only after such evidence is produced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the initial burden under Article 38.23 suppression? | State argues burden remains with appellee (Robinson) unless a statutory violation is shown. | Robinson contends the burden should shift to State once a statutory violation is alleged. | Defendant bears initial burden; burden shifts to State only after evidence of a statutory violation is produced. |
| Does stipulating to a warrantless arrest affect 38.23 burden allocation? | State maintains stipulation relieves appellee from rebutting presumption of proper conduct for the arrest; burden not shifted for 38.23. | Robinson argues stipulation changes burden allocation for subsequent suppression issues. | Stipulation to the warrantless arrest does not alter the 38.23 burden-shifting framework. |
| Was there evidence of a statutory violation regarding who drew the blood? | Vercher’s inability to identify the drawee alone does not prove unqualified drawing. | If proven unqualified, the State would have to show compliance at trial. | No evidence of a statutory violation; the burden never shifted to the State to prove qualifications. |
| At a motion to suppress, who bears the burden to show admissibility under the statutory requirement? | Movant must produce evidence of improper conduct; if none, no shift. | State would bear burden at trial to show admissibility if the case proceeds. | Movant bears burden at suppression; State bears burden only upon production of evidence of statutory violation. |
| Does Article 38.23 apply when there was no statutory violation affecting blood draw? | If no statutory violation is shown, suppression under 38.23 is inappropriate. | Even without a shown violation, the State could be required to prove predicates at trial; suppression not automatic. | Article 38.23 does not apply absent a statutory violation; remand for considerations consistent with the holding. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (burden of persuasion on movant for suppression matters; preponderance standard at trial)
- Pham v. State, 175 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (initial burden on movant to produce evidence; shifts to State upon evidence of illegality)
- Russell v. State, 717 S.W.2d 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (movant must defeat presumption of proper conduct to shift burden)
- Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (once statutory violation is shown, State must prove compliance)
- Reynolds v. State, 204 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (predicate showing for admissibility of scientific evidence; applicability to blood tests)
- Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (Daubert/Stewart framework for scientific evidence)