Weaver v. State, 2-85-004-CR
| Decision Date | 11 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-85-004-CR,2-85-004-CR |
| Citation | 700 S.W.2d 776 |
| Parties | John Howard WEAVER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Law Offices of William Willis and William Willis, Cleburne, Alley & Alley and Richard Alley, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Tim Curry, Crim. Dist. Atty., and Mary Thornton Taylor, Asst. Dist. Atty., Fort Worth, for appellee.
Before FENDER, C.J., HOPKINS, J., and HUGHES, Retired (Sitting by Assignment).
This is a misdemeanor driving while intoxicated case. The defendant pled not guilty and elected for the court to assess punishment. The jury found the defendant guilty and the court assessed punishment at imprisonment for 90 days in the Tarrant County Jail. Imposition of sentence was suspended and the defendant was placed on probation for two years. A $1,000 fine was imposed.
We affirm the judgment.
The defendant assigns three grounds of error. The first two complain of failure of the trial court to dismiss the information because of the Hurst police department's failure to videotape the defendant. The third ground asserts the unconstitutionality of the statute permitting consideration of defendant's failure to submit a specimen for testing, because the caption of such legislation was insufficient to comply with the adequate notice requirements of TEX. CONST. art. III, sec. 35.
In grounds of error one and two, the defendant contends that TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 6701L-1, sec. 24 (Vernon Supp.1985) and section 19.05 of the Texas Penal Code, Act of June 16, 1983, ch. 303, sec. 24 1983 Tex.Gen.Laws 1568, 1605, require that beginning January 1, 1984, all counties of 25,000 population or more shall videotape those persons arrested for driving while intoxicated. The defendant asserts error by the trial court in failing to grant his motion to dismiss the information because of the failure to videotape him. He alleges he was denied due process of law because he was prohibited from substantiating his claim of nonintoxication by exhibiting a videotape to the jury for its consideration. It is undisputed that the defendant was arrested for the offense of driving while intoxicated in March, 1984, a month or so prior to the time the Hurst police department began videotaping those arrested for driving while intoxicated. It is further uncontradicted that the City of Hurst is located within Tarrant County and that Tarrant County has a population of more than 25,000. The State acknowledges that no videotape was made of defendant at the time of his arrest, but contends that art. 6701L-1, sec. 24 does not require videotaping. We disagree with the contentions of both the State and the defendant for the reasons hereinafter stated.
In paragraph (a) sec. 24, counties of 25,000 or more population, effective January 1, 1984, were required to purchase and maintain electronic devices capable of visually recording persons arrested for the offense of driving while intoxicated; paragraph (b) requires the sheriff and county commissioners to determine the number of devices necessary to ensure that the visual recording can be made within a reasonable time after arrest; and paragraph (c) provides that when the visual recording is not made, this fact is admissible at the trial. It is true the statute does not specifically state that a visual recording must be made, but to interpret the statute as not requiring...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lyons
...has stated that the statute contemplates and requires that visual recordings be made of DWI suspects. See Weaver v. State, 700 S.W.2d 776, 777 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1985, pet. ref'd). The substantive law underlying the trial court's grant of a new trial in this case is discussed in a trio o......
-
Gruber v. State, 13-90-410-CR
...S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Irion v. State, 703 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Tex.App.--Austin 1986, no pet.); Weaver v. State, 700 S.W.2d 776, 777-78 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1985, pet. ref'd). The jury was made fully aware that appellant was not videotaped. Accordingly, no error occurred, even assumi......
-
Green v. State
...requires the mandatory use of video recording equipment in all DWI cases in counties covered by the statute. Weaver v. State, 700 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1985, pet. ref'd). However, it is clear from the statute itself and the cases construing it that the only sanction available for......
-
Finley v. State
...the Fort Worth Court of Appeals to require the videotaping of individuals arrested pursuant to art. 6701l-1. Weaver v. State, 700 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1985, pet. ref'd). The Weaver Court held that "[i]t is true the statute does not specifically state that a visual recording must......