Cole, Steven

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 6, 2015·No. PD-0077-15·Published

Opinion

PD-0077-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 3/4/2015 5:23:00 PM Accepted 3/6/2015 2:48:48 PM ABEL ACOSTA

PD-0077-15 CLERK

TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

STEVEN COLE APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE

Appeal from Gregg County

124111 District Court No. 41,312-A

********

No. 06-13-00179-CR

Sixth Court of Appeals

2014 Tex.App.LEXIS 13498, 2014 WL 7183859

********

REPLY TO STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW ********

EBB B. MOBLEY

March 6, 2015 State Bar# 14238000 Attorney at Law

422 North Center Street-Lower Level P. 0. Box 2309

Longview, TX 75606

Telephone: 903-757-3331

Facsimile: 903-753-8289

ebbmob@ao l.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

REPLY TO QUESTIONS ONE AND TWO The first two questions propounded by the State ask whether the implied consent and mandatory blood draw provisions of the Transportation Code provide an exception to the requirement for a search warrant. This issue has been answered by this Court in the negative in State v. Villarreal, PD-0306-14 (Tex.Crim.App. November 26,2014, pet. reh. granted).

REPLY TO QUESTION THREE

In State v. Villarreal, PD-0306-14, this Court held the Transportation Code does not create an exception to the warrant requirement to permit a warrantless taking of blood. The State offers no new arguments in its petition in this case to distinguish it from Villarreal. Respondent would contend this Court correctly decided Villarreal in light of Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013).

REPLY TO QUESTION FOUR

The concurring opinion in the case below at pp. 22-26 discusses in detail the proposition that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has previously rejected an effort to broaden the [Texas] good-faith exception using federal precedent ... Douds, 434 S.W.3d at 861-62 (citing Howard v. State, 617 S.W.2d 191 , 193 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) (op. on reh'g) (declining to apply federal good-faith doctrine to Texas statutory good-faith exception). Since "the Texas good faith exception is more limited than the scope of its federal counterpart ... an officer's good faith reliance on the law or existing precedent is not recognized as an exception to the Texas exclusionary rule." State v. Jackson, 435 S.W.3d 819, 831 (Tex.App. - Eastland 2014, pet. granted) (citations omitted).

PD-0077-15

STATE OF TEXAS V. STEVEN COLE

APPENDIX TO APPELLANT'S REPLY TO STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

4 RR 6-28

Justin Schwane - July 31, 2013 Direct Examination by Ms. Hood

1 Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. We're 2 ready to continue with trial at this time. 3 Ms . Brownlee, you may call your next witness. 4 MS . HOOD : The State calls Justin Schwane. 5 THE COURT: Justin Schwane. 6 (Witness enters courtroom) 7 THE COURT : Sir, if you'll raise your right 8 hand and receive the oath from the Clerk . 9 (The oath was administered by the Clerk) 10 THE COURT : Just have a seat right there in 11 the jury box [sic] and speak directly into the microphone . 12 You may proceed. 13 JUSTIN SCHWANE, 14 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 15 DIRECT EXAMINATION 16 BY MS. HOOD: 17 Q. Good morning . Can you state your name for the 18 record? 19 A. Justin Schwane, S - C-H-W - A- N-E. 20 Q. And how are y ou presently employed? 21 A. As a toxicology chemist at Dallas County 22 Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences . 23 Q. And what is a toxicologist? 24 A. A toxicologist is someone who studies toxins in the 25 human body . A forensic toxicologist is -- has an

Tina A. Campbell, CSR

124th District Court

101 East Methvin, Suite 447 Longview, Texas 75601

Justin Schwane - July 31, 2013 Direct Examination by Ms . Hood

1 application to drug analysis, law enforcement and criminal 2 investigation. 3 Q. And how long have you been employed with SWIFS? 4 A. Over 10 years . 5 Q. And that's the abbreviation for -- 6 A. SWIFS, yes . S-W-I-F-S. 7 Q. And at the time of testing, was your lab accredited 8 by the Texas Department of Public Safety? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. December 1st, 2011, into January 30th, 2012? 11 A. Yes . 12 Q. What are your duties at SWIFS? 13 A. There was the analytical services, records 14 management, overall laboratory management, instrument 15 maintenance, method development. There's the evidence 16 management . 17 Q. And have you ever testified before? 18 A. I have . 19 Q. Few or many 20 A. Many occasions. 21 Q. Many . And have you ever tested blood for the 22 purpose of determining if drugs or alcohol are in the blood? 23 A. Yes, I have. 24 Q. And would you say how many times, guesstimate -- 25 A. Many.

Tina A. Campbell, CSR

124th District Court

101 East Methvin, Suite 447 Longview, Texas 75601

Justin Schwane - July 31, 2013 Direct Examination by Ms. Hood

1 Q. Many; hundreds, thousands? 2 A. Depending on the analysis, yes, thousands possibly. 3 Q. And can you tell us a little bit about your 4 educational background? 5 A. My highest level of education is a master's in 6 chemistry from the University of Oklahoma in Norman; also a 7 bachelor's in chemistry from Southwestern Oklahoma State 8 University in Weatherford, Oklahoma. I have completed our 9 facility's in-house training, some continuing education 10 courses. I belong to a professional organization, attend 11 scientific meetings annually, if I'm capable. 12 Q. And on January 30th, 2012, were you employed as a 13 toxicologist by SWIFS? 14 A. Yes, I was . 15 Q. Did you have an occasion to collect a sample of 16 blood from the SWIFS property room that was identified as 17 Steven Cole's? 18 A. I believe that I did take possession of some blood 19 for this case from our toxicology evidence storage area . 20 Q. When did you receive the blood? 21 A. I'd have to check my records. 22 Q. Okay. That's fine. 23 A. My records show that our facility received it on 24 the 4th of January, 2012. 25 Q. Okay. And when was it tested?

Tina A. Campbell, CSR

124th District Court

101 East Methvin, Suite 447 Longview, Texas 75601

Justin Schwane - July 31, 2013 Direct Examination by Ms . Hood

1 A. The testing was anywhere from the 9th of January 2 through the 26th of January. 3 Q. Okay. We'll get to that in just a second. 4 I'm showing you what's been marked - - 5 actually it's already been admitted, excuse me, as State's 6 Exhibit 11 . Can you identify this? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. You can how can you identify that? 9 A. There's our laboratory's unique identifier 10 barcode label is is on here . 11 Q. And does that have a certain number? 12 A. Yes . IFS - 12-00228. 13 Q. And does that number match your records number? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And it's the same number? 16 A. Yes, ma'am . 17 Q. Okay . When you received the blood, was it -- the 18 box, was it tampered with in any way? 19 A. Again, to check the chain of custody, it was 20 received in a sealed condition. 21 Q. Okay . And now I'm going to -- if you could open 22 this for us? 23 A. (Witness complies) . 24 Q. And this has previously been admitted also. This 25 is State's Exhibit 12. Do you recognize this?

Tina A . Campbell, CSR

124th District Court

101 East Methvin, Suite 447 Longview , Texas 75601

Justin Schwane - July 31 , 2013 Direct Examination by Ms. Hood

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cole, Steven, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Cole, Steven (Cole, Steven) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Missouri v. McNeely
133 S. Ct. 1552 (Supreme Court, 2013)
Howard v. State
617 S.W.2d 191 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Steven Cole v. State
454 S.W.3d 89 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)
State v. John Berry Jackson
435 S.W.3d 819 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)