Christopher Newberry v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
03-14-00560-CR
5974935
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
7/8/2015 10:32:58 AM
No. 03-14-00560-CR JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
FILED IN
In the Third Court of Appeals 3rd COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Austin, Texas
7/8/2015 10:32:58 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
CHRISTOPHER NEWBERRY,
Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee.
On appeal from the County Court-at-Law Number Five,
Travis County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C-1-CR-14-209349
STATE'S BRIEF
DAVID A. ESCAMILLA
TRAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY
GISELLE HORTON
ASSISTANT TRAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY
State Bar Number 10018000
Post Office Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78767
Telephone: (512)854-9415
TCAppellate@traviscountytx.gov
July 8, 2015 ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
ORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT REQUESTED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................ 111
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................ 1
ISSUES PRESENTED ................................................. 1
BACKGROUND ..................................................... 2
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ....................................... 4
ARGUMENT
Reply Point One: The evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the
judgment of conviction for driving while intoxicated .............. 5
1. Newberry's contentions ................................. 5
2. The standard of review .................................. 6
3. The evidence is legally sufficient to show that
Newberry drove while intoxicated ........................ 7
Reply Point Two: If the point is preserved, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in overruling Newberry's mistrial motion.. 8
1. Relevant facts .......................................... 8
2. Newberry's contentions ................................ 12
i
3. General mistrial principles and the standard of review ..... 12
4. Newberry has forfeited appellate review .................. 14
5. The judgment is not subject to revision because a simple
objection or an instruction to disregard could have prevented
or cured the problem. . ................................. 15
PRAYER ......................................................... 18
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................... 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................... 19
11
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Rule Page
TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a) ............................................. 15
Cases
Bledsoe v. State, 21 S.W.3d 615
(Tex. App.- Tyler 2000, no pet.) .............................. 16
Griggs v. State, 213 S.W.3d 923
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ....................................... 15
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307
(1979) ...................................................... 6
Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010) ........................................ 7
Ladd v. State, 129 S.W.3d 126
(Tex. Crim. App. 1999) .................................... 12, 15
Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516
(Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ........................................ 6
Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446
(Tex. Crim. App. 2015) ........................................ 6
Ocon v. State, 284 S.W.3d 880
(Tex. Crim. App. 2009) .................................... 13, 15
Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774
(Tex. Crim. App. 2000) ....................................... 15
Pierce v. State, 234 S.W.3d 265
(Tex. App.- Waco 2007, pet. ref' d) ............................ 16
Sharper v. State, 22 S.W.3d 557
(Tex. App.- Texarkana 2000, no pet.) .......................... 16
Sierra v. State, 280 S.W.3d 250
(Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ........................................ 7
Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262
(Tex. Crim. App. 2003) .................................... 13, 15
iii
Wead v. State, 129 S.W.3d 126
(Tex. Crim. App. 2004) ....................................... 13
Wood v. State, 18 S.W.3d 642
(Tex. Crim. App. 2000) ....................................... 12
Young v. State, 137 S.W.3d 65
(Tex. Crim. App. 2004) ................................. 13, 14, 15
iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Newberry was charged by information with the Class B
misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated (DWI), alleged to have been
committed June 9, 2014. CR 5-6, 8. A jury found him guilty of the offense
on August 6, 2014. CR 36.
On August 7, 2014, the trial court assessed punishment and
sentenced Newberry to 120 days' confinement in the Travis County Jail.
CR 39. Newberry gave written notice of appeal on August 28, 2014. CR 51,
52 [amended notice of appeal].
ISSUES PRESENTED
Issue One: If the Court ignores (1) the eyewitness's identification of
Newberry as the driver in a nearby collision, and (2) Newberry's on-the-
scene admission to driving, is the evidence legally sufficient to sustain the
judgment for driving while intoxicated?
Issue Two: Newberry testified that he was intoxicated when the
police found him, but that his co-worker had driven, not he. Intending to
impeach his credibility with a felony conviction, the prosecutor began by
1
asking Newberry on cross-examination whether he was currently in jail (he
was) and whether he was incarcerated on a parole hold (he was not).
Newberry never objected or asked for a curative instruction. Instead, he
moved for a mistrial some time later. Was the trial court's denial of this
mistrial motion reversible error?
BACKGROUND
Police received a suspicious-person call about a Jeep parked on the
sidewalk in front of the Summit assisted-living facility on Mesa Drive, in
Austin. 3 RR 23; 5 RR State's Exhibits #3, 4 & 6 [photos], State's Exhibit #5
[third 9-1-1 call]. The Jeep's driver was reportedly "out stumbling around."
5 RR State's Exhibit #5@ 8:30, 8:50. When police got there about twenty
minutes later, they found a Jeep parked halfway on the sidewalk. Inside
was a man asleep in the driver's seat, covered in sweat and drooling, with
the Jeep's keys in his lap. 3 RR 26. This was Newberry. 3 RR 79.
After the police woke him up, Newberry "wasn't all there." 3 RR 27.
His speech was unintelligible. "It kind of came and went." His balance was
poor. 3 RR 27. Police saw two open beers in the Jeep: one in the center
2
console, and another "in the rear portion of the center console, possibly on
the back floor." 3 RR 30. They also found three unopened beer cans in a
cooler. 3 RR 30; 5 RR State's Exhibit #7 [photograph]; 5 RR State's Exhibit
#8@ 18:45:10 [videotape]. Newberry smelled of alcohol but denied
drinking. 3 RR 38. He had watery, glassy eyes and very restricted pupils.
3 RR 38, 73. He told the officers that he had been driving, "heading into
Austin." 3 RR 77.
Police began to suspect that this Jeep might have been the same one
that-according to two independent 9-1-1 callers' reports almost an hour
and a half earlier-had been driving "crazy" erratically and had collided
with a guardrail on FM 2222. Both callers reported that the Jeep had turned
off of 2222 and onto Mesa Drive; one caller related that the Jeep had turned
into the Summit assisted-living facility. 3 RR 28; 5 RR State's Exhibit #5.
One of these eyewitness/callers came to the scene and identified Newberry
as the driver who hit the guardrail. 3 RR 28. Consistent with the collision
reports, the Jeep's bumper had sustained a big dent. 5 RR State's Exhibit #6.
3
Field sobriety testing showed that Newberry was intoxicated. 3 RR
53. After arrest, Newberry at first agreed to give a breath specimen for
testing purposes at the jail, but later refused. 3 RR 55, 60.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Summary of Reply Point One: Newberry has failed to view the
evidence as the standard of review requires. Two concerned eyewitnesses
called police to report an extremely erratic driver who had been swerving
all over the road and hitting the curb on FM 2222; the driver then collided
with a guardrail.
About an hour and a half later, police responded to a suspicious-
person call and found a Jeep parked on the curb. The driver was asleep at
the wheel, with keys in his lap and beer in his car. He smelled of alcohol,
and showed typical signs of intoxication. He told police he had been
driving. One of these 9-1-1 callers came to the scene and identified
Newberry as the driver who had collided with the guardrail. Viewing this
evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier could
have found that Newberry drove while intoxicated.
4
Summary of Reply Point Two: Because defense counsel withdrew
the mistrial motion relating to the "parole hold," only the mistrial motion
relating to Newberry's incarceration is at issue. Newberry forfeited his
appellate complaint, because his mistrial motion was untimely.
Furthermore, appellate courts will not reverse when lesser remedies
such as an objection or an instruction could have cured the error. The
complained-of testimony easily could have been prevented by timely
objection. And an instruction to disregard could have "cured" it because
the incarceration question and response does not fall within the narrow
class of highly prejudicial errors for which mistrials are reserved. The trial
court therefore did not abuse its discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial.
ARGUMENT
Reply Point One: The evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the
judgment of conviction for driving while intoxicated.
1. Newberry's contentions.
In his first point, Newberry contends that the evidence of driving
while intoxicated is insufficient once the Court ignores two key items of
5
evidence: (1) an officer's testimony that a 9-1-1 caller identified Newberry
as the driver who collided with the guardrail, and (2) Newberry's
admission at the scene that he had been driving. Newberry's Brief, pp. 25,
28-33. Alternatively, Newberry contends that, even if the evidence showed
him driving, the State established no temporal link between that driving
and his intoxication at the scene. Newberry's Brief, p. 38.
These contentions misapply the standard of review.
2. The standard of review.
A legal-sufficiency challenge asks whether, viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446,
448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). The reviewing court presumes that the jury
resolved all conflicts in favor of the verdict and defers to that
determination. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326; Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525
(Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ("The jury is the sole judge of credibility and weight
to be attached to the testimony of witnesses").
6
3. The evidence is legally sufficient to show that Newberry drove
while intoxicated.
Two 9-1-1 callers saw Newberry crash into a guardrail after
repeatedly swerving and hitting the curb. 5 RR State's Exhibit #5. The
callers stated that the Jeep's driver was "wasted," that he "must be super
drunk," and that he was" going to kill somebody." 5 RR State's Exhibit #5
@ 1:15,3:50. One of the 9-1-1 callers identified him at the scene as the driver
in the collision. 3 RR 24-28, 101; 5 RR State's Exhibit #8@ 18:19:30 [DVD].
The police found a big dent in the Jeep's bumper, which was consistent
with a collision with the guardrail. 3 RR 32-33; 5 RR State's Exhibit #6. The
collision with the guardrail shows driving while intoxicated. See Kuciemba
v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460, 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Sierra v. State, 280
S.W.3d 250, 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Thompson v. State, No. 03-11-00255-
CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 6714, at *22-23 (Tex. App.-Austin Aug. 8, 2012,
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (evidence that
defendant did not have normal use of mental or physical faculties included
circumstances of collision and reckless driving observed by witnesses).
7
The manner and place of the Jeep's coming to rest-tires up on the
curb, in front of the assisted-living facility-show that Newberry drove
while intoxicated. The fact that he stumbled around outside the assisted-
living facility, then fell asleep behind the wheel, keys in his lap, also show
driving while intoxicated. The highly intoxicated Newberry admitted to
police that he had been driving. From this any rational trier could have
found beyond a reasonable doubt that Newberry drove while intoxicated.
Reply Point Two: If the point is preserved, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in overruling Newberry's mistrial motion.
1. Relevant facts.
Newberry took the stand at trial, admitted drinking, but denied
driving. He testified that his illegal alien co-worker, Juan, was the driver.
Juan, he related, stopped in front of the assisted-living facility because he
knew someone there. The drunk stumbling about who was reported in the
suspicious-person call was Juan, not Newberry. Newberry moved over to
the driver's seat to roll down a difficult window, then fell asleep; Juan was
8
gone when he woke up. The dent on the Jeep's bumper happened long
ago. 3 RR 73-83.
Intending to attack the credibility of this testimony, the prosecutor
led off his cross-examination by asking Newberry if he had been in jail
since this arrest.
PROSECUTOR: [L ]et' s talk about what happened since
this arrest. Since this arrest, you've been
in jail haven't you?
NEWBERRY: Yes, sir.
PROSECUTOR: Okay, and that's been on a parole hold,
correct?
NEWBERRY: That's been for this.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor-
THE COURT: Please approach.
3RR86.
It was only after some discussion at the bench that defense counsel
moved for a mistrial because of the incarceration question. 3 RR 89. The
trial court did not rule on the motion immediately, but wanted to consider
9
further testimony. 3 RR 90. On voir dire examination, Newberry testified
that he is currently on parole for two felonies-bribery and burglary-and
that a DWI conviction could jeopardize his parole status. 3 RR 91-92. At
the conclusion of this brief voir dire examination, the trial court told the
prosecutor,
You can only impeach him with the actual felony conviction for
bribery, which is a crime of moral turpitude. So I can allow the
testimony that he has been convicted of bribery, but the whole
line of questioning about him being on parole, and that being
some sort of motivation to lie, I don't think you can-I'm not
going to allow that.
3 RR 92. Defense counsel then moved for a mistrial on grounds that the
jury had heard that Newberry was on parole. 3 RR 93.
As soon as the court denied the motions, defense counsel retracted
her mistrial motion regarding the "parole hold," telling the trial court: "If
you're going to . . . say the bribery is allowable, then . . . the fact that
he's not been revoked from parole and he's been successful for three years
out in the world, I think is relevant." 3 RR 95. The trial court ascertained
that counsel had withdrawn the "parole" mistrial motion and now was
10
concerned only with the first question and answer about Newberry's
incarceration. 3 RR 95. Defense counsel proposed to explain to the jury
why Newberry was currently in jail, by putting on testimony about the
nature of parole "and how, by virtue of this very charge, that's what's
holding him." 3 RR 95-96. The trial court did not "want to go down that
road" because it was time-consuming and irrelevant. 3 RR 96, 97-98. After
a brief recess, the judge told the parties she was denying the mistrial
motion, and would instruct the jury to disregard the testimony about
Newberry's current incarceration. 3 RR 97.
When the jurors came back in, the judge instructed them to
"disregard the last question and response," 3 RR 99, about whether
Newberry was being held in jail on a parole violation. Defense counsel
never objected to any of the complained-of questioning, never requested
any sort of instruction to disregard, and did not point out that the
instruction given was not what the trial court had intended.
When the prosecutor resumed his cross-examination, he established
Newberry's felony conviction for bribery. 3 RR 99-100.
11
2. Newberry's contentions.
Newberry's second point contends that the trial court erred
reversibly when it denied his mistrial motion after the prosecution
improperly elicited that he was in jail and on parole at the time of trial.
Newberry's Brief, pp. 40, 49. He asserts that the complained-of testimony
violated his rights and operated to deny him a fair trial. Newberry's Brief,
pp. 49-51. Newberry likens his case to that of a defendant involuntarily
dressed in jail attire during trial. Newberry's Brief, p. 50.
3. General mistrial principles and the standard of review.
Declaring a mistrial is appropriate only for "highly prejudicial and
incurable errors." Wood v. State, 18 S.W.3d 642, 648 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
Only in extreme circumstances, where the prejudice is incurable-when
error is so prejudicial that expenditure of further time and expense would
be wasteful and futile-should proceedings be halted and a mistrial
declared. Ladd v. State, 129 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
Whether the error rises to this level must be determined on the case's
particular facts. Id.
12
Denial of a mistrial motion is reviewed under the abuse of discretion
standard. Wead v. State, 129 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004);
Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262,272 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). An appellate
court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's
ruling and considers only those arguments before the trial court at the time
of the ruling. Ocon v. State, 284 S.W.3d 880, 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009);
Wead, 129 S.W.3d at 129.
Newberry did not object or ask for a curative instruction before
moving for a mistrial. When a party's first action is to move for mistrial,
appellate review is limited to asking whether the trial court erred in not
taking the most serious action of ending the trial. If an event could have
been prevented by timely objection or cured by a jury instruction to
disregard, but the appellant did not request these lesser remedies, the
appellate court will not reverse. Ocon, 284 S.W.3d at 885; Young v. State, 137
S.W.3d 65, 70 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); see also Rice v. State, No. 03-07-00446-
CR, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 2062, at *16 (Tex. App.- Austin March 26, 2009,
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
13
4. Newberry has forfeited appellate review.
Defense counsel withdrew her mistrial motion as to the question and
response about Newberry's parole hold. 3 RR 95. Thus, only the mistrial-
worthiness of the incarceration question and response is properly before
the Court.
The potential for error became apparent as soon as the prosecutor
asked Newberry, "Since this arrest, you've been in jail, haven't you?" 3 RR
86. Surely defense counsel knew the answer to this question. An objection
therefore would have prevented the prejudicial event's occurrence.
But counsel did nothing until well after the trial court on its own
initiative called the parties to the bench and discussed the matter. If a party
delays his mistrial motion, and by failing to object allows for the
introduction of further objectionable testimony and greater accumulation
of harm, the party may no more rely on the untimely mistrial motion than
on an untimely objection. Young, 137 S.W.3d at 70. Because the mistrial
motion was untimely, Newberry's second point is unpreserved for
14
appellate review. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Griggs v. State, 213 S.W.3d 923, 927
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Young, 137 S.W.3d at 70.
5. The judgment is not subject to revision because a simple objection
or an instruction to disregard could have prevented or cured the
problem.
When the movant does not first request a lesser remedy, the court of
appeals will not reverse the judgment if the problem could have been
cured by the less drastic alternative. Ocon, 284 S.W.3d at 885.
As discussed earlier, a simple objection would have obviated the
problem altogether. Furthermore, any prejudice could have been cured by
an instruction to disregard.
Asking an improper question will seldom call for a mistrial. Ladd, 3
S.W.3d at 567. And, ordinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure
the error associated with an improper question and response. Ovalle v.
State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see also Simpson, 119
S.W.3d at 272. A trial court does not abuse its discretion if, at the time of
the motion, the improper question's effect could have been cured by jury
instruction. Ocon, 284 S.W.3d at 886-87; Young, 137 S.W.3d at 70.
15
A question revealing that a defendant is in jail at the time of trial is
often improper, but courts have consistently held that it is not incurably
prejudicial. See Pierce v. State, 234 S.W.3d 265, 268 (Tex. App.- Waco 2007,
pet. ref' d) (instruction by the trial court cured any prejudice caused by
witness testimony exposing defendant's incarceration); see also Bledsoe v.
State, 21 S.W.3d 615, 624 (Tex. App.- Tyler 2000, no pet.); Sharper v. State,
22 S.W.3d 557,559 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 2000, no pet.).
In Sharper, the State asked a witness if he was with Sharper in "hold-
over the past two or three days." 22 S.W.3d at 558. The witness confirmed
that Sharper was in jail at the time of trial. Id. After acknowledging that the
prosecutor's question was improper, the court instructed the jury to
disregard the testimony, and denied Sharper's motion for mistrial. Id.
Distinguishing the case from one in which the defendant appeared
before the jury in jail attire, the Sharper Court affirmed, holding that the
error was cured by the instruction to disregard. Sharper, 22 S.W.3d at 559.
"The matter was raised one time, and it does not appear that it was
emphasized or even repeated at any other point in the proceeding." Id.
16
Moreover, the brief statement that Newberry was incarcerated does
not equate to the "recurring impression created when a defendant appears
throughout trial in handcuffs, shackles or jail clothing." Hamilton v. State,
No. 14-08-00175-CR, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 480, at *7 (Tex. App.-Houston
[14th Dist.] Jan. 28, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication); see also Butler v. State, No. 14-11-01001-CR, 2012 Tex. App.
LEXIS 8132 at *6-7 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] September 27, 2012,
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
As in Sharper, the improper questioning was not of such a character
that a curative instruction would have been ineffective in removing any
prejudice. Indeed, defense counsel could not have believed the error to
have been incurably prejudicial when she herself proposed to adduce
testimony educating the jury about Newberry's sentence on the bribery
conviction, involving prison and release on parole. 3 RR 96. Thus, the
denial of Newberry's mistrial motion was within the zone of reasonable
disagreement, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to
take the extreme action of ending the trial.
17
PRAYER
For these reasons, the Travis County Attorney asks this Court to
overrule Newberry's points of error and affirm the judgment of conviction
for driving while intoxicated.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID A. ESCAMILLA
TRAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY
Assi an ravis County Attorney
ar Number 10018000
Austin, Texas 78767
Telephone: (512)854-9415
TCA ppellate@traviscountytx.gov
ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
18
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Relying on Corel WordPerfect's word-count function, I certify that
this document complies with the word-count limitations of TEX. R. APP. P.
9.4. The document contains 3687 words.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have sent a complete and legible copy of this State's
brief via electronic transmission, to Mr. Newberry's attorney, Mr.
Christopher Morgan, at chrismorganlaw@cs.com, on or efore July 8, 2015.
ravis County Attorney
19