Ruben Guerrero v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 31, 2000
• Docket: 03-99-00609-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

---

NO. 03-99-00609-CR

---

Ruben Guerrero, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0985593, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

Ruben Guerrero appeals from his conviction for driving while intoxicated (felony). See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04 (West 1994). After a jury found appellant Guerrero guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at four years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice--Institutional Division. We will affirm the trial court judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

At approximately 1:30 a.m. on October 31, 1998, Guerrero was driving a vehicle involved in an accident at the intersection of Cesar Chavez Street and Robert L. Martinez Street in Austin, Travis County, Texas. Guerrero's car collided with one driven by Gilbert Moore. The evidence showed that although the light was flashing red in Guerrero's direction of travel, he never stopped before entering the intersection where Moore hit him. The evidence also showed that after the accident Moore observed two passengers jump out of Guerrero's car and run off, each carrying a brown paper sack. They returned empty-handed a few minutes later. Moore also watched Guerrero and these two men take beer cans out of Guerrero's car, pour the contents down a storm sewer, then toss the cans down the drain. After they were done, the passengers walked off. Guerrero suggested they exchange insurance information and not wait for the police. Moore testified that because he could detect a strong smell of alcohol on Guerrero's breath and because Guerrero had run the red light, he insisted they wait. He described Guerrero's balance as unsteady; he had to lean against his car. Guerrero was lethargic and had bloodshot eyes. At one point, Guerrero walked to a nearby house to use the phone and Moore noticed that he was unsteady on his feet. Moore testified that when two police officers arrived and told Guerrero they suspected he had been driving while intoxicated, he began hurling epithets and threats. He said "I can take you down there. I ain't taking no f[] test. I ain't taking -- I have been through this before, you f[] a[]." ⁽¹⁾

The police arrived some thirty minutes after the accident. Officer Kenneth Koch and Officer Shaun Mierl testified that they noticed a strong smell of alcohol on Guerrero's breath. Koch testified that the longer the officers talked to Guerrero, the more hostile he grew. He also testified that he searched Guerrero's car and found an open can of beer on the driver's side floorboard. The can still contained some beer. Both officers observed that Guerrero's speech was slurred, he misstepped when he walked, and he swayed when standing. His eyes were bloodshot, glassy, and watery.

Officer Mierl testified that when they handcuffed Guerrero, he became verbally aggressive and began threatening the officers. Guerrero said he "had a good lawyer" and could "get out of" the charge. He also said he was "ready" for the video room. Guerrero refused to perform a breath test and refused to perform field sobriety tests. Mierl testified that Guerrero was verbally aggressive in the video room. Koch testified that Guerrero's demeanor changed when he entered the video room and he seemed not to be intoxicated on the videotape made there. In both Koch's and Mierl's opinion, however, he was intoxicated. ⁽²⁾

The State offered exhibits showing two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated. Guerrero stipulated that he was the person previously convicted.

Guerrero called two defense witnesses to establish that he was not intoxicated. Lee Castillo, Sr., who lives at the corner of the intersection where the wreck occurred, said that someone who might have been Guerrero came to his house to use the phone and did not appear intoxicated. Janice Gientke, Guerrero's girlfriend, testified that, on the night in question, he had not consumed alcohol between 6:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. when he left home to go play pool.

Guerrero does not challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence. In two points of error, he complains that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after the arresting officer injected inadmissible and prejudicial comments about Guerrero and complains that reversible error was committed when Officer Koch deliberately injected inadmissible opinion evidence about what Guerrero's blood alcohol level might have measured if he had taken an intoxilyzer test.

Discussion

In his first point of error, Guerrero complains about a comment from Officer Koch concerning Guerrero's demeanor in the video room. Officer Koch testified that Guerrero refused to perform field sobriety tests after he was taken to the video room. When asked if Guerrero had the same demeanor while in the video room as he had at the scene, Officer Koch said: "No, it was different. It looked like he had been in there a few times before." Defense counsel objected. The court sustained the objection, instructed the jury to disregard, and overruled the motion for mistrial.

Guerrero complains that Koch's comment contravened the principle that an accused is entitled to be tried on the accusation made in the complaint and not for being a criminal in general. See Turner v. State, 754 S.W.2d 668, 671-72 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Young v. State, 261 S.W.2d 836, 837 (Tex. Crim. App. 1953); Johnson v. State, 932 S.W.2d 296, 301 (Tex. App.--Austin 1996, pet. ref'd). Guerrero contends that the comment was so inflammatory as to suggest the impossibility of withdrawing the impression produced on the minds of jurors and thus was incurable by an instruction to disregard. See Coe v. State, 683 S.W.2d 431, 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Evans v. State, 542 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). Guerrero argues that the error is particularly egregious because an experienced witness, a police officer, committed it. We disagree that the error was incurable by instruction.

By the time Officer Koch testified, the jury had been read the indictment and knew that appellant had previous convictions for driving while intoxicated. More importantly, however, the jury had heard Guerrero's own words at the scene, as testified to by Moore. Guerrero's words made it clear that he had "been there before." His statement to the officers that he "would take them down" could reasonably be interpreted as a threat that he could perform well enough in the video room to defeat the officers' case. After the instruction, the officer did not again allude to Guerrero's behavior in the video room.

However, defense counsel, in his closing argument, emphasized that Guerrero had previous problems with driving while intoxicated. In attempting to justify Guerrero's belligerence at the scene, defense counsel said that Guerrero became belligerent at the point that he recognized that the officers were thinking of taking him in for driving while intoxicated, and "a person who has been through that process before knows what type of trouble it is, and so it is not unreasonable for a person in that position to become angry they are going to be accused of something again." He then went on to argue that Guerrero wanted to go to the video room to show he was not intoxicated. Later in the argument he said, after claiming that Guerrero's looking through his wallet was evidence that he was not highly intoxicated, "I mean when a man is arrested for a third time on DWI and says I want to go to the video room and then he is forced to do these things and he is looking, you know, he is on video and he is doing these things and he is doing them fine, what does that indicate?" We conclude that the remark in question was not so prejudicial as to be incurable by use of an instruction to disregard and overrule appellant's first point of error.

In his second point of error, Guerrero complains that Officer Koch made an improper remark when he compared Guerrero to other persons he had arrested for driving while intoxicated by saying that he had arrested people who displayed fewer signs of intoxication and were less belligerent, and they "blew a .15." Guerrero failed to preserve error on this point by failing to obtain an adverse ruling. See Ramirez v. State, 815 S.W.2d 636, 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (must receive adverse ruling on objection to preserve error for review). The proper method of pursuing an objection until an adverse ruling is to (1) object and, if the objection is sustained, (2) request an instruction to disregard, and (3) if an instruction is given, move for a mistrial. See Harris v. State, 784 S.W.2d 5, 12 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Brooks v. State, 642 S.W.2d 791, 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). Guerrero objected; the trial court sustained his objection and instructed the jury to disregard the officer's remark. Guerrero did not move for a mistrial and thus has preserved nothing for our review. Were we to reach the merits, we would conclude that any error was harmless in view of the extensive testimony concerning Guerrero's behavior that occurred before Officer Koch testified. Accordingly, we overrule point of error two.

Conclusion

We have reviewed and overruled both of Guerrero's points of error. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court judgment of conviction.

Mack Kidd, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Kidd and B. A. Smith

Affirmed

Filed: August 31, 2000

Do Not Publish

1. From the context of the statement, it appears that Guerrero did not mean he could "take the officers down there" in the sense of transporting them to the police station, but rather he could "take them down" in the sense of defeat their claim that he was intoxicated by his performance in the video room.

2. The videotape is not part of the record on appeal.

Crim. App. 1953); Johnson v. State, 932 S.W.2d 296, 301 (Tex. App.--Austin 1996, pet. ref'd). Guerrero contends that the comment was so inflammatory as to suggest the impossibility of withdrawing the impression produced on the minds of jurors and thus was incurable by an instruction to disregard. See Coe v. State, 683 S.W.2d 431, 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Evans v. State, 542 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). Guerrero argues that the error is particularly egregious because an experienced witness, a police officer, committed it. We disagree that the error was incurable by instruction.

By the time Officer Koch testified, the jury had been read the indictment and knew that appellant had previous convictions for driving while intoxicated. More importantly, however, the jury had heard Guerrero's own words at the scene, as testified to by Moore. Guerrero's words made it clear that he had "been there before." His statement to the officers that he "would take them down" could reasonably be interpreted as a threat that he could perform well enough in the video room to defeat the officers' case. After the instruction, the officer did not again allude to Guerrero's behavior in the video room.

However, defense counsel, in his closing argument, emphasized that Guerrero had previous problems with driving while intoxicated. In attempting to justify Guerrero's belligerence at the scene, defense counsel said that Guerrero became belligerent at the point that he recognized that the officers were thinking of taking him in for driving while intoxicated, and "a person who has been through that process before knows what type of trouble it is, and so it is not unreasonable for a person in that position to become angry they are going to be accused of something again." He then went on to argue that Guerrero wanted to go to the video room to show he was not intoxicated. Later in the argument he said, after claiming that Guerrero's looking through his wallet was evidence that he was not highly intoxicated, "I mean when a man is arrested for a third time on DWI and says I want to go to the video room and then he is forced to do these things and he is looking, you know, he is on video and he is doing these things and he is doing them fine, what does that indicate?" We conclude that the remark in question was not so prejudicial as to be incurable by use of an instruction to disregard and overrule appellant's first point of error.

In his second point of error, Guerrero complains that Officer Koch made an improper remark when he compared Guerrero to other persons he had arrested for driving while intoxicated by saying that he had arrested people who displayed fewer signs of intoxication and were less belligerent, and they "blew a .15." Guerrero failed to preserve error on this point by failing to obtain an adverse ruling. See Ramirez v.