Zavala v. State
498 S.W.3d 641
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Johnny Zavala was convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated; punishment assessed at 180 days in county jail, probated for 15 months.
- At trial the State sought to qualify a witness outside the jury’s presence as an expert on alcohol’s effects; the court ruled the witness was qualified.
- Appellant contends the witness later testified before the jury about alcohol effects and challenges admission of that testimony on appeal.
- Appellant supplied only a partial reporter’s record (the qualification hearing) but did not include the required statement of issues under Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(c).
- Because the partial record requirements were not met, the appellate court presumed omitted portions supported the trial court’s judgment and that any alleged error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony on alcohol effects | Trial court erred in allowing witness to testify regarding alcohol effects before jury | Omitted record portions likely show proper qualification and support admission; any error harmless | Overruled; conviction affirmed |
| Adequacy of record for appellate review | Partial reporter’s record was sufficient to show error | Appellant failed to comply with Rule 34.6(c), so record is incomplete and appellate court must presume omitted parts support judgment | Appellate court presumes omitted portions relevant; burden on appellant unmet |
| Harmlessness of any evidentiary error | Admission of unqualified expert testimony affected substantial rights | Without complete record, cannot show appellant was harmed; any non-constitutional error must be disregarded if it did not affect substantial rights | Any error deemed harmless or unproven; no reversal |
| Consideration of trial testimony after suppression hearing | N/A (related doctrinal point) | If same issue was later placed before factfinder, appellate review may include trial evidence | Court notes appellate review may consider trial evidence if parties revisited suppression issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. State, 853 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (applying former Rule 34.6 and presuming omitted record portions support judgment)
- Burks v. State, 904 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1995) (same rule application where partial record deficiencies preclude reversal)
- Black v. State, 362 S.W.3d 626 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (appellate review of suppression rulings may include evidence later presented to the factfinder)
- Barshaw v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standard for harmless non-constitutional error reviewing the whole record)