Martinez v. State
Opinions
OPINION
This is an appeal of a conviction by a jury on a not guilty plea for the offense of driving while intoxicated. Punishment was assessed by the court at six months confinement in jail and a $100.00 fine, probated for a period of two years.
Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that the court reversibly erred in permitting the State, over appellant’s objection, to elicit testimony before the jury that appellant had been offered and had refused to take a breath test.
In Dudley v. State, 548 S.W.2d 706 (Tex.Cr.App., decided this- day), this Court held the admission of testimony concerning refusal to take a breathalyzer test constitutes reversible error. For the reasons set forth in Dudley v. State, supra, the trial court reversibly erred in admitting testimony before the jury that appellant had been offered and had refused to take a breath test.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
548 S.W.2d 719 (Martinez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.