Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 02-20-2017

Case Style:

Javier Caesar Gutierrez v. State of Texas

Case Number: 04-16-00218-CR

Judge: Rebeca Martinez

Court: Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Plaintiff's Attorney:

David A. Escamilla
Giselle Horton  

Defendant's Attorney:

Adam Crawshaw

Description: Around 2:38 a.m., Officer Vanessa Jimenez was dispatched to a one-car accident on the
exit ramp to a highway. The car crashed head on into the wall of the exit ramp, and both air bags
deployed. Gutierrez was driving the car.
At trial, Officer Jimenez testified she first encountered Gutierrez while he was being treated
in an EMS van. Officer Jimenez described Gutierrez’s eyes as being bloodshot, red, and watery.
She stated a strong smell of alcohol was coming from his breath which “was just pretty much
taking over the whole van.” After EMS cleared Gutierrez, Officer Jimenez drove him to a nearby
gas station because it was raining and she wanted to conduct the field sobriety tests under the cover
of the gas station’s awning.
Gutierrez told Officer Jimenez he was returning home to San Antonio after drinking in
downtown Austin. He stated he had consumed two eight-ounce drinks in approximately one-half
hour. Although Gutierrez was a bartender, he stated he was not certain what type of alcohol the
drinks contained because he ordered them off a menu. Gutierrez also informed Officer Jimenez
he had taken a “couple of doses” of Benadryl a “couple of hours ago.” Officer Jimenez was handed
a box of Benadryl which the trial court admitted for demonstrative purposes. The trial court
instructed the jury not to be confused that the box contained the specific medication, if any,
consumed by Gutierrez. Officer Jimenez read the following warning from the box:
Drowsiness may occur, avoid alcoholic drinks, be careful while driving a motor vehicle or operating machinery; alcohol, sedatives, and tranquilizers may increase drowsiness.

Officer Jimenez attempted to conduct the HGN test; however, Gutierrez failed to follow
her instructions. After numerous attempts, Officer Jimenez determined Gutierrez was refusing the
test based on his actions, and she placed him under arrest for driving while intoxicated. Gutierrez
refused to consent to a breath test.

A videotape of the conversation between Officer Jimenez and Gutierrez at the gas station
and her subsequent efforts to conduct the HGN test also was introduced into evidence and played
for the jury. Based on the evidence presented including the videotape and Officer Jimenez’s
testimony, the jury found Gutierrez guilty of driving while intoxicated. Gutierrez appeals. DISCUSSION Gutierrez’s sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his
use of Benadryl. We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse
of discretion standard and uphold a trial court’s decision to admit evidence as long as the ruling is
not outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Henley v. State, 493 S.W.3d 77, 82-83 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2016).
In his brief, Gutierrez phrases his issue as follows:
Whether the Trial Court erred and abused its discretion by allowing the State to present evidence regarding Benadryl without the State laying the proper foundation for its entry. Specifically, whether the State is required to produce expert testimony to establish the reliability and relevancy of Benadryl when proving intoxication for a DWI offense.

Gutierrez first argues the State was required to produce an expert “within the particular field of
toxicology or drug recognition” in order to introduce evidence of Benadryl intoxication, and
Officer Jimenez was not qualified as such an expert. Gutierrez next argues the State failed to prove the evidence regarding the Benadryl was reliable and relevant.2
In support of his argument, Gutierrez primarily relies on the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals decision in Layton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In Layton, Daniel

Layton was convicted of driving while intoxicated by the introduction of alcohol into the body.
280 S.W.3d at 237. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his use of
Xanax and Valium “without requiring the State to show it was reliable and competent scientific
evidence.” Id. The evidence was in the form of statements Layton made to the arresting officer
recorded on video. Id. In response to the officer’s question regarding whether he took any
medications, Layton responded he took Xanax and Valium prescribed by his doctor, but qualified
that he had taken the Valium at 2 p.m. the previous afternoon and had not taken Xanax since the
day before. Id. The officer inquired whether Layton read the inserts included with those
medications and commented “it was probably not a good idea to be drinking ‘on top of those.’”
Id. At trial, Layton objected to the admissibility of his use of Xanax and Valium, arguing the
evidence was inadmissible “without the State proving the accuracy and reliability of the evidence
and its relevance to whether [he] was intoxicated by the introduction of alcohol.” Id. at 240.
Layton further argued the State had not shown the relevance of the evidence “without extrapolation
on the Xanax and Valium to determine their effect on the body.” Id.
As previously noted, Layton was charged with intoxication by introduction of alcohol into
the body, and the jury was charged with a definition of intoxication limited to the introduction of
alcohol into the body. Id. at 241. As a result, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded:
. . ., to be relevant in this specific case, the evidence needed to influence the jury’s determination of whether Appellant was intoxicated by alcohol, not another substance combined with alcohol. Without a showing that Xanax and Valium, taken more than 24 hours and 14 hours prior, respectively, would have had a synergistic effect on Appellant’s degree of intoxication by alcohol, the evidence is not relevant.

Id. The court then held “the trial court erred in allowing [Layton’s] use of Xanax and Valium to
be introduced to the jury without the State first showing that the evidence was relevant to
[Layton’s] intoxication,” reasoning:
04-16-00218-CR


- 5 -

The essential element disputed by Appellant is that the evidence of his use of medications should not have been admitted without the State establishing that it was relevant to his intoxication. There is no evidence as to the dosage taken by Appellant, the exact times of ingestion, or the half-life of the drug in the human body. Considering the length of time between the ingestion of the medication and the time of arrest, a lay juror is not in a position to determine whether Xanax and Valium, taken more than 12 hours before arrest, would have any effect on Appellant's intoxication. There was no testimony indicating that Officer Allen had any medical knowledge regarding the uses of Xanax and Valium, or about the effect of combining the medications with alcohol.

Id. at 241-42.
The decision in Layton is readily distinguishable from the instant case. First, the jury in
the instant case was charged that intoxicated means “not having the normal use of mental or
physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a
dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the
body.” Therefore, the State was not required to prove Benadryl “would have had a synergistic
effect on [Gutierrez’s] degree of intoxication by alcohol.” Id. at 241. Instead, the State was only
required to show Gutierrez introduced both alcohol and Benadryl into his body and was intoxicated
as a result. Second, Gutierrez testified about the dosage he had taken, i.e., a couple of doses, and
the time of the ingestion, i.e., a couple of hours ago. Finally, assuming Benadryl’s causing
drowsiness was not within the common knowledge of lay jurors, Officer Jimenez confirmed its
effect by reading the label from the box. We disagree that Officer Jimenez required any special,
expert qualifications to read the label or that the State was otherwise required to prove the
reliability of the scientific theory used in determining the side effects listed on the label of the box.
Therefore, unlike the facts in Layton, ‘[c]onsidering the length of time between the ingestion of
the medication and the time of arrest, a lay juror [was] in a position to determine whether [Benadryl
taken a couple of hours] before arrest, would have any effect on [Gutierrez’s] intoxication.”3 Id.
at 242.
Even if we are incorrect in holding the trial court erred in admitting the evidence regarding
Gutierrez’s Benadryl use, the error must be disregarded unless it affected Gutierrez’s substantial rights.4 TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b). “A substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial
and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266,
271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). A criminal conviction will not be overturned for non-constitutional
error “if the appellate court, after examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the error
did not influence the jury, or influenced the jury only slightly.” Schutz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442,
444 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (emphasis in original). We “consider everything in the record,
including testimony and physical evidence, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, and
the character of the error and its relationship to other evidence.” Id. We “might also consider the
jury instruction given by the trial judge, the State’s theory and any defensive theories, closing
arguments and even voir dire, if material to appellant’s claim.” Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862,
867 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
Gutierrez admitted he was drinking alcohol an hour before the accident. Although he stated
he only had two drinks, the jury could have disbelieved that portion of his testimony based on
Officer Jimenez’s description of his appearance and the strong odor of alcohol on his breath. The
jury could also have believed Gutierrez was being evasive about the amount of alcohol he
consumed from his testimony that he did not know what alcohol the drinks contained even though
he was a bartender. The jury also was able to view the videotape and observe Gutierrez’s actions
and demeanor in responding to Officer Jimenez’s questions and her instructions while she was
attempting to administer the HGN test. The jury could have determined Gutierrez was being
deliberately uncooperative to prevent Officer Jimenez from finding the necessary clues. See
Kirsch v. State, 306 S.W.3d 738, 745 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (noting inability to perform field
sobriety tests or follow directions supports inference of intoxication); Jackson v. State, 468 S.W.3d
189, 193 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (noting appellant’s refusal to perform
field sobriety tests as factor jury could consider in finding appellant intoxicated). Finally, the jury
could infer Gutierrez was intoxicated based on his refusal to perform the breath test. See Bartlett
v. State, 270 S.W.3d 147, 153 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (holding evidence of refusal to submit to
breath test tends to show consciousness of guilt); Stovall v. State, 440 S.W.3d 661, 668 n.7 (Tex.
App.—Austin 2011, no pet.) (noting refusal to submit to breath test supports inference that
appellant was driving while intoxicated). The State’s theory was that Gutierrez was intoxicated,
and most of the prosecutor’s arguments were focused on Gutierrez’s refusal to undergo the tests
that would prove his intoxication. After examining the record as a whole, we hold the evidence
strongly supports a finding of intoxication without considering the Benadryl evidence, and we are
assured that if the admission of the Benadryl evidence influenced the jury at all, it did so only
04-16-00218-CR


- 8 -

slightly. See Schutz, 63 S.W.3d at 444; see also DeLarue v. State, 102 S.W.3d at 402 (holding
erroneous admission of evidence regarding marijuana use was harmless where testimony at trial
established appellant was highly intoxicated from alcohol). Therefore, if the trial court erred in
admitting the Benadryl evidence, we hold its admission was harmless.

Outcome:

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: