This is an appeal from a conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI). A jury convicted the appellant of this offense, and the trial сourt assessed a term of fifteen days’ confinement in the county jail and a fine of $750.00. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on probation for two years. We affirm.
At 8:30 on the evening of October 10, 1986, Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Trooper Kim Drummond arrested Gary Wayne Lancaster for DWI. Traveling east on 1-20 near the town of Canton, Lancаster drove his pickup truck past Drummond’s vehicle at a speed of 65 m.p.h. in a 55 m.p.h. zone. Drummond pulled over Lancaster for sрeeding after pacing his car for several seconds. Noticing the appellant’s bloodshot eyes and detecting the smell of alcohol on his breath, Drum-mond conducted a field sobriety test on Lancaster. Believing the appellant intoxicated because of his unsatisfactory performance on this test, Drummond arrested Lancaster for DWI. Upon arrival at the highway pаtrol office in Canton, Drum-mond administered an intoxilyzer test and videotaped Lancaster’s performance on a sobriety tеst. After blowing a 0.15 on the intoxilyzer test, Lancaster was charged with the offense of DWI. The appellant brings three points of error.
In his first point of error, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the opinion testimony of Drummond on the field sobriеty test he gave Lancaster without requiring the State to establish the trooper as an expert witness. Trooper Drummond gave Lancaster a type of field sobriety test known as the horizontal nys-tagmus gaze test. The American Heritage Dictionary (2d ed.1982) defines nystаgmus as a spasmodic, involuntary motion of the eyeball. This procedure tests the ability of the subject to focus his eyes on an object, usually a pen or pencil, and track its movement with only his eyes. In conducting this test, Drummond held a pen about twelve inches from Lancaster’s face and asked him to follow the pen without moving his head as he moved the pen back and forth and left and right. Drummond testified that Lancaster exhibited jerky eye movement which indicated that he had been drinking.
The appellant contends that bеcause the test is not well known or widely understood only an expert should present his opinion on the results of the test. Texas courts have consistently upheld DWI convictions based on the opinion testimony of police officers who observed the defеn
*139
dant s unsatisfactory performance on field sobriety tests.
Cockerham v. State,
In Lancaster’s second point of error, he contends that the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion for continuance during trial. The trial court granted the State’s motion for continuance at 4:00 p.m. on the first day of triаl because the State’s second and final witness was testifying in another court on that afternoon. The continuance was grantеd for James Hughes, a technical supervisor for the DPS, who testified the following morning about the accuracy of the intoxilyzer which the appellant had used. The granting or denying of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Bradshaw v. State,
In his third point of error, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defense to show a portion of the videotape during his closing argument. Defense counsel attempted to replay a part of the videotapе to illustrate his argument that the appellant had not lost the normal use of his mental and physical faculties despite the intoxilyzer results. “Proper jury argument must fall within one of four general areas: (1) summation of the evidence; (2) reasonable deduction from thе evidence; (3) answer to argument of opposing counsel; and (4) plea for law enforcement.”
Cannon v. State,
Clearly, an advocate mаy reinforce a jury argument with still photographs. We are unable to perceive any distinction between the use in argument of а photograph and a motion picture that would serve as a ground for barring the use of the motion picture. If anything, the motion рicture is apt to be the more persuasive. A videotape showing the condition of a DWI. defendant minutes after his arrest is evidence, particularly relevant, demonstrative, and compelling. We conclude that the use in argument of a moving picture is аs proper as the use of any other picture if it can be employed within the reasonable time constraints necessarily imposed by the trial court.
The trial court erred in refusing to allow the showing of the videotape during the defense counsel’s closing argument. However, we conclude that the trial court’s error was not reversible. The jury had seen the videotape during the prеsentation *140 of the State’s case and could again view the videotape during its deliberation. We conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court’s refusal to allow the showing of the videotape made no contribution to the conviction or to the punishment. Tex.R. App.P. 81(b)(2). Appellant’s third point of error is overruled.
Judgment is affirmed.