In Texas, what is needed to prove (without reasonable doubt) DWI?

This is question that is gonna be more about law and if I am reading I correctly: Note *I am not the driver in this scenerio so no smart answers! The driver is pulled over and on video he completes (sucessfully) all soberity tests. He does not admit to being drunk but he does say he has had two drinks. The officer does not adminiser the breathalyze nor does he draw blood (nor does he offer either when the tape is played back). The question is, what does the officer need to provide to prove DWI? I know you do not need a test to prove PI, but since DWI is more serious, wojldnt the offficer need more evidence? What kind of testimony does the officer need to convict?

2 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    A first offense or Driving While Intoxicated is a class B misdemeanor and defined by Texas Penal Code § 49.04. Under Texas Law, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a person of driving while intoxicated:

    1.The defendant;

    2.On or about a certain date;

    3.Operated a motor vehicle;

    4.In a public place;

    5.In a particular county in the State of Texas;

    6.While Intoxicated.

    It seems like #1-5 are clearly true in your case. The question, then, is #6.

    The most commonly disputed element in a DWI trial is the “while intoxicated” element. The State of Texas has defined “Intoxication” as [Texas penal Code §49.01(2)]:

    1.not having the normal use of physical faculties OR

    2.not having the normal use of mental faculties OR

    3.having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

    Therefore, the State may prove a person is “intoxicated” for the purposes of a DWI conviction in three (3) different ways:

    1.not having the normal use of physical faculties OR

    2.not having the normal use of mental faculties OR

    3.having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

    It is important to note that a jury does not have to reach a unanimous decision on the manner or means of intoxication. Therefore, the jury does not have to agree how a person is intoxicated only that the all agree the defendant is intoxicated by one of the three ways above. BUT, it is important to remember that the State must prove a person is intoxicated at the time of driving. This can sometimes be a problem for the State when a long period of time elapses between the when a person was arrested and when sobriety tests where preformed.

    Without a breathalyzer, blood sample, or a failed sobriety test, you might have a good chance at fighting the charge.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    Are you extremely saying that if the bible must be utilized in a courtroom of regulation, you will have self assurance?! Are you extremely saying that the try of no be counted if something is genuine or no longer is the way it stands up in a courtroom of regulation?! you are able to no longer actual have self assurance that regardless of is "shown" in a courtroom of regulation is, in certainty, genuine? you have in no way heard of the responsible getting off or the harmless being discovered responsible? C'mon! i presumed you atheists have been meant to be smarter than that! a number of those questions are very disappointing in that regard. Now, in answer to the question, no, of direction no longer! So what? I, as a Catholic, am keen to resign believing as quickly as you atheists teach with none question that God would not exist because you are able to no longer try this anymore than i can teach previous a shadow of a doubt that he does.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.