November 2016

Can Texas Charge a Person with a Crime for Refusing a Breath or Blood Test During a DWI Stop?

In Texas, when a person refuses to provide a breath or blood specimen when being arrested for alleged drunk driving offense, their driver’s license is typically suspended. But, can a state have a law that additionally makes it a crime to refuse a breath or blood test? In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the United States Supreme Court held that a state can attach a criminal penalty to those that refuse to submit to a warrantless breath test but they cannot for those that refuse to submit to a warrantless blood test.

In a previous blog post we discussed the oral arguments that took place in this case and briefed the three cases facing the court, Birchfield , Bernard and Beylund.  Birchfield had been criminally prosecuted for refusing a warrantless blood draw; Bernard had been criminally prosecuted for refusing a warrantless breath test; and Beylund, while not criminally prosecuted for refusing a test, submitted to a blood test after the officer told him the law required it. Birchfield v. North Dakota 579 U.S. ____ (2016).

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Opinion in Birchfield Upholding Criminal Penalty for Breath Test Refusal (But Not Blood)

SUPREME COURT DECISION - Birchfield v. North Dakota

First, the Court determined whether warrantless breath and blood tests were proper searches incident to arrest for drunk driving. The Court held that since “breath tests are significantly less intrusive than blood tests” and in most cases adequately serve law enforcement interests, the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless breath test but not blood test as a search incident to arrest for drunk driving.

Next, the Court addressed the argument that when making the decision to drive on a public road, drivers are deemed to have given consent to submit to a blood test. Applying the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard, the Court held that “motorists cannot be deemed to have consented to submit to a blood test on pain of committing a criminal offense.” Birchfield, 579 U.S. ____ (2016).

Finally, the Court applies these legal conclusions to the three cases.  In Birchfield, the Court held that the judgment affirming his conviction must be reversed because the warrantless blood draw was not a justified search incident to arrest and he was thus, threatened with an unlawful search. In Bernard, the Court held that Bernard had no right to refuse the breath test because it was a proper search incident to arrest. In Beylund, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the state court to reconsider Beylund’s consent given the partial inaccuracy of the officer’s statement that “the law required it.”

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that States may enact laws that attach criminal penalties to the refusal to submit to a breath test but they may not enact such laws that will apply to refusal to submit a blood test. So what does this mean for Texas? Well, while we do not currently have laws in place that attaches a criminal penalty to refusal of a breathalyzer, the State could enact a law that makes it a crime to refuse to provide a warrantless breath test incident to arrest of drunk driving.

Texas Prosecutor Uses the "N" Word During Closing Argument. Court of Appeals Reverses the Conviction.

In December of 2014, Appellant Luis Miguel Hernandez was convicted of the murder of Devin Toler, an African-American man. During the trial, Appellant claimed self-defense, arguing that Toler attacked him and that by killing him, he was defending himself from the attack. The prosecution, however, presented evidence that Appellant provoked Toler by his words, some of them racial slurs. The actual words of the alleged racial slurs were never presented to the jury in the testimony of any witness or otherwise. However, during closing argument, the prosecutor said the following:

"What were the words of provocation? I’ll tell you what the words of provocation were. [Appellant] called Devin and his family 'niggas.' That’s what it was."

The defense attorney promptly objected to the prosecutor's use of the racial slur as it was inflammatory and outside the evidence in the case. Ultimately, (after a heated bench conference) the judge sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the counsel's comment, but did not specify which counsel or what comment the jury was to disregard. The defense did not move for a mistrial. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and sentenced Appellant to 14 years in prison.

See the majority opinion in Hernandez v. State (2nd Court of Appeals - Fort Worth, 2016)

What is a Proper Jury Argument?

On appeal to the Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth), the Appellant challenged the judge's failure to declare a mistrial after the prosecutor's use of the "N" word. The court explained:

Proper jury argument falls into one of four areas: (1) summation of the evidence; (2) reasonable deduction from the evidence; (3) an answer to the argument of opposing counsel; and (4) a plea for law enforcement. Generally, error resulting from improper jury argument is subject to a harm analysis.

The appellate court held that not only were the prosecutor's comments in using the "N" word error, but that the prosecutor's comments constituted an "incurably prejudicial argument;" one that required a mistrial.

Is the "Incurably Prejudicial Argument" Waived if the Defendant Does Not Move for a Mistrial?

Texas courts have consistently held that to preserve error for an improper argument, the defendant must do 3 things:

1. Make a timely and specific objection;
2. Request and instruction to disregard if the objection is sustained; and
3. Move for a mistrial if the instruction to disregard is granted.

Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1173 (1997)

In this case, the defense satisfied 1 and 2, but did not move for a mistrial. The appellate court was then presented with the issue of whether the improper jury argument objection is waived if the defense does not move for a mistrial.  Texas precedent says the issue can be waived for failure to move for a mistrial. But the court does not find this to be wise.

"Logically, this position makes no sense. An incurably prejudicial argument requires a mistrial. If the trial court does not grant the mistrial, the court has committed error that requires setting aside the conviction and re-trying the case. Respectfully, if the argument is so prejudicial that it has deprived the defendant of a fair trial, the injury is fundamental."

The court provides further reasoning to depart from precedent, citing the tenuous political atmosphere surrounding race relations in America at the time of the trial.

The impact of the improper statement by the prosecuting attorney must be viewed in the context of the political atmosphere at the time of trial. The trial took place in early December 2014. On February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman, whose mother was from Peru, killed Trayvon Martin. Emotional discussions of Zimmerman’s ethnicity filled news commentary. Other killings made headlines. Among them was the death of Eric Garner while he was selling loose cigarettes in New York on July 17, 2014. The officer who killed him was Daniel Pantaleo. On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri. On August 11, 2014, Ezell Ford was killed in Los Angeles by two police officers, one of whom was Hispanic. And on November 23, 2014, twelve-year-old Tamir Rice was killed in Cincinnati, Ohio. Additionally, the Black Lives Matter organization was formed in 2013 in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman in his trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin and was actively involved in protests nationwide.

With that, the Second Court held that the improper jury argument was not cured (and could not have been cured) by the judge's "perfunctory" instruction to disregard and that the error was preserved for appeal. The court then reversed the case and remanded back to the trial court.

Dissent Agrees that the Error Was Prejudicial, But Would Not Depart From Precedent

Justice Sudderth dissented. She is not willing to depart from Court of Criminal Appeals' precedent regarding the formal requirement to move for a mistrial. She writes:

Of all of the words in modern American English usage, including the slang and the vulgar, the “n-word” is of such infamy that it is generally referenced and understood only by its first letter. And with very few exceptions, such racially charged inflammatory language has no place in jury argument.

This is certainly the case when a prosecutor, using that language to secure a conviction, goes outside of the record to introduce it. Therefore, I agree with the majority that the prosecutor’s behavior was improper. It was inexcusable. It cannot be condoned. And the trial judge committed error in permitting it. Nevertheless, because we are constrained by precedent of the court of criminal appeals requiring preservation of this type of error, I am compelled to dissent.

It will be interesting to see whether the Court of Criminal Appeals will stick to their previous precedent or take this opportunity to change the law when it comes to an "incurably prejudicial argument" involving racial slurs.

In Tarrant County, the Juvenile Probation Department is the intake agency for the county. This means that when a police officer files a case against a juvenile, it goes to Juvenile Probation before being sent to the District Attorney’s Office. The common practice is for cases to be referred by law enforcement officers without making an arrest. When this happens, there is a specific process in place with certain tasks that the juvenile intake officers must perform before a case is referred to the prosecutor. This article will walk you through this often-misunderstood process and explain why those juvenile probation officers do what they do.

Overview of the Juvenile Intake Process in Tarrant County, Texas

When a case is first received by the Tarrant County Juvenile Probation Department, it is assigned to an intake unit. There are three intake units within the department. Once it is received by the intake unit supervisor, it is assigned to a court intake officer. The court intake officer is responsible for completing several tasks prior to court, including: conducting an intake appointment, administering assessments, making sure the juvenile is fingerprinted and photographed, and preparing a social history. The intake officer must also make a decision about what the next step in the process should be.

The Intake Appointment

The intake appointment is, arguably, the most important piece of the intake process in Tarrant County. It is also the part that is the most confusing to families and defense attorneys alike. While families and attorneys can, and do, refuse to participate in the intake appointment, nothing good comes from refusing. To the contrary, in some cases, cooperating with the probation officer by showing up for the intake appointment can help resolve the case without a referral to the prosecutor or court action. The defense attorney can be at the intake appointment if he wishes, but is not required to be.

During the intake appointment, the probation officer will explain the process to the juvenile and his family. They will also explain the charges and sometimes read a summary of the police report. They are not allowed to give a copy of the police report to the family. The intake officers do not ask the juvenile about the offense. Next, the officer will get some background information from the family. This information will include a family history, school history, and information on any other agencies that the family has been involved with. The officer will also ask about substance abuse, mental health, any prior hospitalizations, current and past medications, behavior at school and home, and family criminal history. The purpose in gathering all this information is to put together a social history, which is a comprehensive report, on the child that will guide the court and the attorneys involved when making decisions about the juvenile and the case.

Juvenile Assessments - PACT & MAYSI

During the intake appointment, the probation officer will also administer a couple of assessments to the juvenile. These are required, but the defense attorney can decline the assessments. The two assessments, which are given are called the PACT and the MAYSI.

The purpose of the PACT assessment is to determine the child’s risks to reoffend and needs for services. The results of the PACT assessment are included in the social history that is given to the court and attorneys. The MAYSI is designed to screen for problems with mental health, substance abuse, and/or suicide. If the results of the MAYSI show a concern for suicide, a no-harm contract will be completed with the child, and the officer will refer that child for services to help with the suicidal tendencies.

Fingerprinting and Photographing

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) requires anyone who is charged with a crime, juvenile or adult, to be fingerprinted and photographed. This information is submitted to DPS and is included in the person’s juvenile or criminal history. When a person is arrested, these two things are done as a part of the book in process. However, when a juvenile case is referred to the Tarrant County Juvenile Probation Department without an arrest, the probation officer is required to get the fingerprinting and photographing done. This is usually done during the intake appointment. It entails the officer walking the child to the juvenile detention center where the fingerprint and photograph office is located and having it done. This is one part of the process, which cannot be waived or refused. It is required by the State of Texas in every case.

Probable Cause Decision Regarding the Case

The last aspect of the intake process is for the probation officer to make a probable cause determination on the case and decide what to do with the case. There are certain offenses that are considered “mandatory referrals” in Tarrant County. This means that the probation officer is required to refer the case to the prosecutor for review. The mandatory referral offenses are the more serious offenses and are usually felonies.

For offenses that are not mandatory referrals, the probation officer is responsible for making a decision about what to do with the case. The officer can, of course, refer a case to the prosecutor for review even if it is not a mandatory referral. However, they have other choices too. They can dismiss a case or offer the juvenile Deferred Prosecution Program (DPP), which is an informal probation period without charges being filed. In some cases, the officer may determine that if the child pays restitution, then the case can be closed out without any further action. If the child and family does not cooperate with the intake process, the officer is required to refer the case to the prosecutor. However, if the family does participate, they may find that they can take care of their case during the meeting with the intake officer, which is definitely to the child’s benefit.

Additionally, the officer may, and many times will, make referrals for services to the family based on their needs. These referrals could be for any number of resources available in the community. They could include referrals to MHMR, school programs, and counseling, to name a few.

The Tarrant County Juvenile Probation Department’s intake process is misunderstood many times by families and attorneys. It is not an adversarial process. The intake officers are neutral parties charged with gathering information, preparing social history reports, and making referrals for services. They are required by law to perform a few tasks, such as fingerprinting. However, their primary purpose is to help the child and the family navigate a system which may be unfamiliar and confusing. If you and your child are contacted about meeting with an officer for an intake appointment, it is preferable for you to cooperate so that you may have access to all possible options in your child’s case.

About the Author

Christy Dunn is a writer and attorney licensed to practice in Texas. She was a prosecutor for 15 years. The last five years of her prosecutorial career was spent in the Juvenile Division of the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office.  She has tried over 20 juvenile cases in Texas and multiple certification hearings.