Beck v. State, 01-822-0332-CR
| Decision Date | 24 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-822-0332-CR,01-822-0332-CR |
| Citation | 651 S.W.2d 827 |
| Parties | Thomas James BECK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Charles E. Martin, Houston, for appellant.
James C. Brough, Houston, for appellee.
Before JACK SMITH, DUGGAN and LEVY, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction of involuntary manslaughter wherein the jury assessed punishment at five years confinement. The appellant's conviction was based on an indictment which alleged that he caused the death of a third person while operating his car under the influence of alcohol. The appellant asserts three grounds of error alleging that the admission of the blood/alcohol tests was error.
At appellant's request, the statement of facts was limited to the hearing on his pre-trial motion to suppress the results of the blood/alcohol test, and the admission of the results of the test during trial.
The State insists initially that because the appellant has not brought forward a complete statement of facts, this court is precluded from reviewing questions relating to the admissibility or insufficiency of the evidence. The State cites numerous cases, including, Timmons v. State, 586 S.W.2d 509 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); and Hale v. State, 509 S.W.2d 637 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), to support its position. These cases involve situations where the appellant failed to include a transcription of the proceedings altogether, or the transcription which was included was an insufficient record from which the appellate court could determine the validity of an alleged error.
The cases cited by the State are distinguishable from the instant case. The record before this court contains all of the facts and proceedings relevant to a determination of the admissibility of the blood/alcohol test. The State does not contend otherwise.
We hold that it is not mandatory that a complete statement of facts be provided to the appellate court when a partial statement of facts contains a complete record of all facts pertaining to the alleged error.
The appellant's first ground of error alleges that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the results of the blood/alcohol test. He asserts that the State failed to establish a chain of custody to prove that the blood sample analyzed was taken from the appellant. He fails to cite authority from the Court of Criminal Appeals to support this contention. However, he does cite a Court of Civil Appeals decision holding that the results of a blood/alcohol test were inadmissible because of the failure to establish the chain of custody. May v. Missouri Kansas-Texas R.R. Co., 583 S.W.2d 694 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1979, writ ref'd, n.r.e.). The Texas Supreme Court, in refusing the writ on this case, held that hospital records showing the results of the test were admissible under the Business Records Act, and that any gaps in the chain of custody go to the weight to be given to the testimony, rather than to its admissibility. Missouri Kansas-Texas R.R. Co. v. May, 600 S.W.2d 755 (1980).
A similar position has been adopted by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Where the State shows the beginning and the end of the chain of custody, any gaps in between, go to weight rather than to admissibility. Medellin v. State, 617 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Mendoza v. State, 552 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Garza v. State, 573 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).
In the instant case, Dr. Daniel Zalucek testified that he was aboard the Life Flight Helicopter on January 1, 1982, which carried the appellant from the scene of the accident to the hospital. Dr. Zalucek stated that he could not remember whether he took the blood sample or whether it was taken by someone else in his presence, but he knew that one was taken because this was standard hospital procedure. He stated that once the blood sample was taken, it was marked with the patient's emergency room number and deposited in a pneumatic chute which ran directly to the laboratory. He further stated that during his experience at Hermann Hospital, a blood sample sent through this chute was never lost, broken, or mixed up.
Bobbie Susan, a laboratory technician at Hermann Hospital, testified that she was on duty in the chemical laboratory at Hermann Hospital on January 1, 1981. She testified that she conducted the test for alcohol content on the sample containing the appellant's emergency room number. She also stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stoker v. State
...goes only to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility. Atkins v. State, 515 S.W.2d 904, 906 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Beck v. State, 651 S.W.2d 827, 829 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.). Appellant's point of error number two is In point of error number eight, appellant con......
-
Garcia v. State
...a complete record of all facts pertaining to the alleged error is found in the transcription of the suppression hearing. See Beck v. State, 651 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no MERITS OF APPEAL Appellant's only ground of error is that the trial court should have grant......
-
Gallegos v. State
...470 S.W.2d 669, 672-73 (Tex.Crim.App.1971); Adams v. State, 744 S.W.2d 622, 626 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1988, pet. ref'd); Beck v. State, 651 S.W.2d 827, 828-29 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.). Where the State shows the beginning and the end of the chain of custody, any gaps in ......
-
Alexander v. State, No. 06-06-00169-CR (Tex. App. 7/19/2007)
...the chain of custody goes inside the laboratory. Medellin v. State, 617 S.W.2d 229, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Beck v. State, 651 S.W.2d 827, 829 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.). We use an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the trial court's decision to a......
-
Table of cases
...§14:121 Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986), §11:57 Bayless v. State , 91 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), §11:141 Beck v. State , 651 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.), §7:71 Bedwell v. State , 142 Tex.Crim. 599, 155 S.W.2d 930 (App. 1941), §13:40 Beebe v. State......
-
Table of cases
...§14:121 Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986), §11:57 Bayless v. State , 91 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), §11:141 Beck v. State , 651 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.), §7:71 Bedwell v. State , 142 Tex.Crim. 599, 155 S.W.2d 930 (App. 1941), §13:40 Beebe v. State......
-
The Blood Alcohol Test Case
...of the evidence, not the admissibility. [See Yeary v. State, 734 S.W.2d 766, 769 (Tex.App.—Ft. Worth 1987, no pet.); Beck v. State, 651 S.W.2d 827, 829 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.); Torres v. State, 109 S.W.3d 602 (Tex.App.—Ft. Worth 2003).] I would argue there does need to ......
-
The Blood Alcohol Test Case
...of the evidence, not the admissibility. [See Yeary v. State , 734 S.W.2d 766, 769 (Tex.App.—Ft. Worth 1987, no pet.); Beck v. State , 651 S.W.2d 827, 829 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.); Torres v. State , 109 S.W.3d 602 (Tex.App.—Ft. Worth 2003).] I would argue there does need ......