This pre admission determination is required whether the science at issue is novel or well-established. Before scientific evidence may be admitted, the trial court must conduct a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine whether the proponent has established by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the underlying scientific theory is valid (2) the technique applying the theory is valid and (3) the technique was properly applied on the occasion in question. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has stated numerous times that a trial court=s responsibility under Texas Rule of Evidence 702 is to determine whether proffered scientific evidence is sufficiently reliable and relevant to assist the jury. In Appellant=s first issue, she claims that the trial court erred by failing to perform its gatekeeping function and by permitting the State to introduce scientific evidence derived from use of an ignition interlock device without first requiring the State to meet its burden under Kelly v. She received community supervision the first conviction, and a thirty-day jail sentence for the second conviction. This was Appellant=s third conviction for DWI she had previously been convicted of misdemeanor DWI in 19. The trial court imposed that same sentence on September 20, 2006. The jury found Appellant guilty and assessed her punishment at eight years= confinement. The trial court entered a plea of Anot on Appellant=s behalf. The trial court overruled Appellant=s motion, and therefore did not conduct a Kelly gatekeeper hearing.Ī jury trial began on September 18, 2006. Second, Appellant argued that the ignition interlock device was not scientifically reliable to establish that Appellant had consumed an alcoholic beverage in violation of her pretrial bond. First, Appellant argued that the ignition interlock device was not scientifically reliable to identify and accurately return a test indicating the presence of alcohol on Appellant=s breath. Appellant filed a motion to exclude the State=s admission of the ignition interlock device evidence based on two grounds. Specifically, the State notified Appellant that it intended to offer evidence showing that Appellant committed a violation of the Smart Start ignition interlock device by failing a retest while the engine was running and by failing to provide a passing test before the engine was turned off. As a condition of her pretrial release on bond, Appellant was ordered to install and maintain an ignition interlock device on her car and to Aonsume no alcoholic August 31, 2006, the State notified Appellant that it intended to offer evidence at trial that Appellant had violated the conditions of her bond on May 19 and 26, 2006, as disclosed by records generated by the ignition interlock device that had been installed on Appellant=s car. Appellant then the left the hospital without checking out.Īppellant was charged by indictment on March 16, 2006, with the third- degree felony offense of DWI. The sample had an alcohol concentration of approximately. A sample of blood was taken from Appellant at the hospital. A trooper who inventoried Appellant=s car found a half-empty bottle of Chardonnay in it. A witness called for emergency assistance, and an ambulance took Appellant to the hospital. On January 4, 2006, Appellant was speeding when she went airborne in her car and hit a tree. In two issues, Appellant Paula Brock appeals her conviction and sentence for felony driving while intoxicated (DWI).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |