Kuciemba v. State
Citation | 310 SW 3d 460 |
Decision Date | 26 May 2010 |
Docket Number | No. PD-0512-09.,PD-0512-09. |
Parties | Julian KUCIEMBA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
John V. Elick, Bellville, for Appellant.
Jeffrey L. Van Horn, State Prosecuting Atty., Austin, for State.
Appellant was found behind the steering wheel, injured and intoxicated, at the scene of a one-car rollover accident, with a blood-alcohol level of more than twice the legal limit. The court of appeals found the evidence to be insufficient to show that appellant was intoxicated at the time that the accident occurred. We disagree and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
Sheriff's Deputy Jonathan Prior received a dispatch for a one-vehicle, rollover accident, with injuries. He arrived to find a pickup truck in a ditch. The truck was upright on its wheels, but the roof was partially crushed, indicating that the vehicle had completely rolled over. Appellant was behind the steering wheel. Upon arriving, Deputy Prior saw appellant slide across the center console and exit on the passenger side. Appellant had small cuts on his forehead, and blood was running down his face. Deputy Prior smelled a strong odor of alcohol on appellant's breath and noticed that appellant had to steady himself on his vehicle. Appellant's eyes were glassy and bloodshot, he had difficulty standing, and his speech was slurred. Appellant said that he had fallen asleep.
Approximately three minutes later, EMS arrived, and appellant was loaded into an ambulance. David Zeiders, one of the paramedics, smelled alcohol, but was not sure whether the odor was coming from appellant's breath or his person. Zeiders noticed cuts on appellant's face and hands and a red strap mark across appellant's chest where his seat belt would have been. Appellant said that he did not lose consciousness, but he also did not remember the accident. Zeiders drew blood from appellant before the ambulance left the scene.
No alcoholic beverages or containers were found in the pickup truck or at the scene. No skid marks were found on the roadway—indicating that appellant did not brake before the rollover occurred. The blood that was drawn at the scene was later tested at the hospital, revealing a blood alcohol level of .214.
The court of appeals found the evidence to be legally insufficient to show that appellant was intoxicated at the time he was driving.1 The court identified the critical inquiry as whether there was a temporal link between appellant's driving and the intoxication.2 It relied upon opinions from the Court of Appeals for the First District for the proposition that, absent evidence in the record establishing the time of the accident or of a defendant's conduct in driving in a public place, evidence is insufficient to show that a defendant drove while he was intoxicated.3 The court observed that, in this case, the State presented neither witnesses to "testify regarding appellant's driving before the accident occurred" nor evidence to "establish how soon after the accident Deputy Prior arrived at the scene."4 It therefore held that there was neither direct nor circumstantial evidence to establish the necessary temporal link.5 The court held that the evidence given at trial supported "a finding that appellant was intoxicated at the accident scene" but was "insufficient to show that appellant was intoxicated while driving."6
As the court of appeals correctly noted, in order for the evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction for driving while intoxicated, there must be a temporal link between the a defendant's intoxication and his driving. But a conviction can be supported solely by circumstantial evidence.7 "Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor" and "the standard of review on appeal is the same for both direct and circumstantial evidence cases."8 Being intoxicated at the scene of a traffic accident in which the actor was a driver is some circumstantial evidence that the actor's intoxication caused the accident, and the inference of causation is even stronger when the accident is a one-car collision with an inanimate object. We find instructive a case from the Supreme Court of Nebraska with similar facts:
Moreover, a driver's failure to brake also provides some evidence that the accident was caused by intoxication.10 Further, appellant's presence behind the steering wheel and the fact that he was still bleeding support an inference that the accident had occurred a short time previously. Finally, the high-blood alcohol level—more than twice the legal limit—found in a sample taken at the scene, supports an inference either that appellant was recently involved in the accident or that he had been intoxicated for quite a while. The combination of these facts is sufficient to support appellant's conviction for driving while intoxicated.
We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to that court to address appellant's remaining issue.
The issue before the Court is whether the State must present direct evidence of a temporal link between driving and intoxication when a defendant is charged with driving while intoxicated. The majority concludes that the circumstantial evidence offered in this case was sufficient to support Appellant's conviction. I respectfully dissent.
I agree with the court of appeals that there is "neither direct nor circumstantial evidence to establish the necessary temporal link" between Appellant's driving and his intoxication. Kuciemba v. State, No....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dangerfield v. The State Of Tex.
...the steering wheel... support[ed] an inference that the accident had occurred a short time previously." See Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460, 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The Kuciemba court further determined that in order for the evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction for drivin......
-
McCann v. State
...operating a motor vehicle, there must be a temporal link between the defendant's intoxication and his driving. Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460, 462 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). Such a finding can be supported by direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. (holding that conviction can be supported sole......
-
Perkins v. State
...panel," and that it did not appear as though Perkins's vehicle had been moving at a high rate of speed. Cf. Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460, 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (explaining that fact that defendant crashed into inanimate object is factor that may be considered when deciding whether......
-
Gutierrez v. State
...an actor," and "the standard of review on appeal is the same for both direct and circumstantial evidence cases." Kuciemba v. State , 310 S.W.3d 460, 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (quoting Guevara v. State , 152 S.W.3d 45, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) ). The trier of fact is the sole judge of the ......