Woodman v. State
491 S.W.3d 424
Tex. App.2016Background
- Defendant drove an SUV into oncoming lanes and onto a sidewalk, striking two pedestrians; one died and the other suffered serious injuries. Charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault.
- State theory: defendant was intoxicated on opiates (morphine/Percocet). Defense theory: defendant suffered a seizure while driving.
- Hospital records show defendant had a seizure the day before, was given morphine and Percocet, discharged at 5:00 p.m.; crash occurred at 7:00 p.m. Jail and toxicology evidence showed high oxycodone levels and signs of opioid intoxication; trace morphine detected; no alcohol.
- Defense argued possible second seizure and that Percocet could have been taken after the crash; toxicologist testified ingestion might have been at 7:15 p.m. Jury convicted on both counts; sentences of 20 years (manslaughter) and 13 years (aggravated assault) plus fines.
- Procedural history: defendant moved twice for continuances (one written but not properly sworn; one oral), requested an involuntary-intoxication jury instruction and objected to a voluntary-intoxication instruction in the charge, and moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct after a juror visited the crime scene during the punishment recess.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion(s) for continuance — denial | State: Denial proper; defense failed to follow continuance formalities and had records timely | Appellant: Denial abused discretion because voluminous hospital records and a post-tender Safety Event form required time to review and investigation | Court: Denial not preserved — written motion lacked proper sworn affidavit and second motion was oral; issue forfeited; overruled |
| Jury charge — involuntary intoxication instruction refused; voluntary intoxication instruction given | State: No error; charge correctly stated the law | Appellant: Entitled to involuntary-intoxication instruction due to prescription opiate administration; the voluntary-intoxication paragraph unfairly commented on evidence | Court: No error — no evidence she was unaware of narcotics’ effects so involuntary-intoxication not raised; voluntary-intoxication language tracked Penal Code and was proper |
| Motion for new trial — juror visited crime scene during recess | State: Juror was familiar with area and visit occurred during punishment recess; no outside influence prejudicial to sentencing | Appellant: Juror’s site visit was an outside influence and trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to question juror | Court: No abuse of discretion denying hearing — court reasonably could conclude no reasonable probability visit prejudiced punishment; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackshear v. State, 385 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (written, sworn continuance motion required to preserve complaint)
- Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (unsworn oral continuance forfeits appellate review)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (two-step charge-error review)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (harm analysis for charge error)
- Farmer v. State, 411 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (elements and contours of involuntary-intoxication defense)
- Torres v. State, 585 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (involuntary intoxication recognized as affirmative defense)
- Mendenhall v. State, 15 S.W.3d 560 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000) (involuntary intoxication when defendant lacked knowledge of side effects)
- Aliff v. State, 955 S.W.2d 891 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997) (no involuntary-intoxication instruction when no evidence of ignorance of effects)
- Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (court may instruct jury by tracking statutory language)
- McQuarrie v. State, 380 S.W.3d 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (outside influence doctrine; juror contact with scene can be outside influence)
- Colyer v. State, 428 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (objective test for prejudicial effect of outside influence)
- Martinez v. State, 74 S.W.3d 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standard for reviewing denial of new-trial hearing)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (right to new-trial hearing not absolute)
- Rozell v. State, 176 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (defendant not always entitled to hearing on motion for new trial)