Rodriguez v. State, 62745
| Decision Date | 21 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 62745,No. 2,62745,2 |
| Parties | Jesus RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Tomas Garza, Lubbock, for appellant.
John T. Montford, Dist. Atty. and Richard L. Howell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lubbock, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ONION, P. J., and CLINTON and TEAGUE, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for driving while intoxicated, where the court assessed punishment at thirty (30) days' imprisonment and a $100.00 fine, probated.
In appellant's sole ground of error he multifariously contends that the court erred in admitting into evidence testimony of the administration of a breathalyzer examination and the results because 1) he was not informed that the examination or its results could or would be used against him in court and 2) he did not consent to the examination voluntarily.
We will first address appellant's contention that he did not voluntarily consent to the breathalyzer examination.
Officer Daniel Matteson of the Department of Public Safety testified that on November 12, 1978 he and officer James Walker stopped appellant for driving while intoxicated. After determining that he believed appellant was legally intoxicated, Matteson placed appellant under arrest. Neither Matteson nor Walker ever gave appellant the Miranda warnings.
Upon reaching the sheriff's office Matteson testified outside the presence of the jury that he informed appellant that if he did not take the breathalyzer test then he would lose his driver's license for up to one year; that if appellant failed the test that he would be charged with driving while intoxicated and that if he passed the test that he would be issued a traffic citation and released. Appellant then voluntarily consented to taking the breathalyzer test.
The appellant also took the stand in his own defense and no testimony was elicited from him as to whether he voluntarily consented to taking the breathalyzer test.
Consent, however, is presumed under Article 6701l -5, § 1, V.A.C.S. Article 6701l -5, § 1, supra, provides that any person who operates a motor vehicle upon a public highway in Texas is deemed to have given his consent to a chemical test of his breath if he is arrested for an offense allegedly committed while he was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Aside from the statutory presumption of consent, the evidence is uncontroverted that appellant voluntarily consented to the breath test.
Appellant also contends that the failure to give him the Miranda warnings prior to taking the breath test precluded the admission of any testimony concerning the test or its results.
In holding handwriting exemplars admissible, Olson v. State, 484 S.W.2d 756 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), held that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...of intoxication. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); Olson, supra; Rodriguez v. State, 631 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). Instead, the State attempted to influence appellant into providing such evidence with the threat of a penalty for refusi......
-
Bass v. State
...supra, namely, "An accused has no constitutional right, however, to refuse to submit to a chemical sobriety test. Rodriguez v. State, 631 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Cr.App.1982)." 2 My research to date reveals that with the exception of Rodriguez v. State, supra, since Dudley et al were decided, this ......
-
Forte v. State, 118-87
...evidence obtained from the breathalyzer. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); Rodriquez v. State, 631 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Olsen v. State, 484 S.W.2d 756 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). However, contrary to the beliefs of many courts of appeals throughout......
-
Cisneros v. State
...under the circumstances of the instant case. See and cf. Olson v. State, 484 S.W.2d 756, 760-762 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Rodriguez v. State, 631 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). Nor do we find a violation of Articles 1.04, 1.05 and 38.08, V.A.C.C.P., as urged by the appellant. Of course, appel......
-
Self-Incrimination
...S.W.2d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Breath samples are not testimonial communication protected by the Fifth Amendment. Rodriguez v. State, 631 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. Crim. App.1982); Miffleton v. State, 777 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Police are not forbidden from seeking a suspect’s breath ......
-
Self-incrimination
...S.W.2d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Breath samples are not testimonial communication protected by the Fifth Amendment. Rodriguez v. State, 631 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. Crim. App.1982); Miffleton v. State, 777 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Police are not forbidden from seeking a suspect’s breath ......
-
Self-Incrimination
...S.W.2d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Breath samples are not testimonial communication protected by the Fifth Amendment. Rodriguez v. State, 631 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. Crim. App.1982); Miffleton v. State, 777 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Police are not forbidden from seeking a suspect’s breath ......
-
Self-Incrimination
...S.W.2d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Breath samples are not testimonial communication protected by the Fifth Amendment. Rodriguez v. State, 631 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. Crim. App.1982); Miffleton v. State, 777 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Police are not forbidden from seeking a suspect’s breath ......