Teran Pennick v. State, 03-14-00334-CR

On Jan. 1, 2013 Teran Pennick was arrested after a vehicle he had driven was found in a ditch on private property; he was tased and taken into custody. A blood draw later showed a BAC of 0.15 or greater.
Pennick was charged by information with Driving While Intoxicated (BAC ≥ 0.15). A jury found him guilty on April 30, 2014; sentencing (bench) followed and this appeal was filed.
While in the police vehicle after arrest, Pennick made several inflammatory and profane recorded statements (some arguably admitting intoxication); the trial court admitted the full recording over defense Rule 403 objections.
The defense argued (1) the recording was more prejudicial than probative and should have been excluded under Tex. R. Evid. 403, and (2) the evidence was legally insufficient to prove Pennick was intoxicated while operating a vehicle in a public place.
Key factual dispute: Pennick clearly drove in a public place earlier in the evening, but witnesses differed about his intoxication at that time; by the time of the arrest he was intoxicated but the vehicle was on private property (a ditch).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Pennick)	Held (appellant's contention)
Admissibility of post-arrest recorded statements	The recording is probative of Pennick's intoxication and thus admissible.	The inflammatory, profane statements were more prejudicial than probative and should be excluded under Rule 403.	Trial court abused discretion by admitting the full recording; probative value was limited given other intoxication evidence.
Sufficiency of evidence of DWI in a public place	Evidence (witness testimony, BAC) supports a rational jury verdict that elements were met.	Evidence was insufficient: no proof Pennick was intoxicated while operating in a public place; when intoxicated, car was on private property.	Verdict not legally sufficient—state failed to prove intoxication while operating in a public place beyond a reasonable doubt (appellant's claim).

McFarland v. State, 845 S.W.2d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (probative value of relevant evidence generally exceeds danger of unfair prejudice)
Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (Rule 403 requires clear disparity between prejudice and probative value to exclude evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Jackson v. Virginia standard governs sufficiency review in Texas)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (evidence must be such that any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Banda v. State, 890 S.W.2d 42 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (defining "public place" for DWI: access by the public or a substantial group of the public)