Case Summary - Holmes et. al v. State

The Court issued the same opinion in eight different cases, so I've consolidated the cases into one post.

Prior to the beginning of David Woodall's DWI trial, the State asked the trial court to take judicial knowledge of the underlying science of the Intoxilyzer 5000. The trial court did so, noting that it had previously found the Intoxilyzer to be reliable and absent any scientific evidence to the contrary, it was going to do so again. Woodall objected to the denial of his right to cross-examine, and informed the court that he intended to question the Technical Supervisor on the Intoxilyzer's ability to correlate the temperature of the breath sample. He also indicate he wanted to question the witness about the way the tube is heated and "there being no correlation to that". Woodall indicated he always contests the temperature in the simulator and Henry's law and how it applies to the simulator. (The trial court indicated he could go into that if the test before and after showed there was something wrong with the simulator, but if not, he couldn't.) Finally, Woodall clarified that he would not be allowed to question the Stat'es expert on the principles and application of the breath testing science.

Woodall indicated he would present an offer of proof later, but he never did. Then, when it came time at trial for the State to introduce the test, the trial court sustained Woodall's objection to the admission of the results for failure to lay the proper predicate. The results were never admitted before the jury. After a lunch break, Woodall again moved to question the expert about the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000, and the trial court again denied it. Then Woodall changed his plea from not guity to no contest pursuant to a plea agreement.

In a published opinion the court of appeals reversed Woodall's case, holding that he had preserved error on his claim that he was denied the right to cross-examine the State's expert. Moreover, Woodall's fundamental right to present a defense is a fundamental element of due process of law, and that the violation of that right amounted to constitutional error. Not surprisingly, the court of appeals held that it could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the errors did not contributed to the conviction. [Here's a link to the underlying court of appeals case info in Woodall's case.]

Seven other defendant's came to trial after Woodall, including Terry Holmes. They were Terry M. Holmes, Gabriel J. Williams, Gabriel Contreras Jr., April Harlow, Alfonso Rodriguez, Michael Brice, and Walter Widener, Jr.. [Note: You can click on their respective names for their individual court of appeals case information.] Each of these defendants filed a motion to cross-examine the State's experts listing eight areas of concern about the internal workings of the Intoxilyzer 5000. Each motion included not only the areas of cross-examination, but also reference to what the defendant's hoped to establish through cross-examination. Relying upon its decisin in Woodall, the court of appeals also reversed in Holmes,Williams, Contreras, Harlow, Rodriguez, Brice, and Widener; all of these opinions were unpublished. They all reversed on the same grounds as they had in Woodall's case.

The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Woodall's case, and affirmed Holmes's, Williams's, Contreras's, Harlow's, Rodriguez's, Brice's, and Widener's cases. The Court distinguished the Woodall case from the other seven defendants because Woodall had failed to convey to the trial court the substance of the information he intended to solicit upon cross-examination, while the other seven defendants did so. Rule 103 of the Texas Rules of Evidence generally requires a person that complains about the exclusion of evidence to make the substance of the excluded evidence known to the trial court to preserve error. While there is an exception to this requirement when the witness seeks to challenge the credibility of a witness through cross-examination to show bias or interest, that exception does not apply when cross-examination is sought to question the credibility of the substance of that witness's testimony. In other words, if the cross-examination goes to the substance of the testimony, the person complaining about exclusion must make a proffer of the substance of the testimony he intended to elicit. However, if the cross-examination is designed to make the witness look like a liar, then the person complaining about exclusion just has to say what questions he would’ve asked. That’s how you preserve error with regard to a complaint regarding the denial of the right to cross-examine.

In Woodall’s case, the defendant sought to challenge the substance of the witness’s testimony about the Intoxilyzer, so he was required to make a proffer of what he intended to elicit. Consequently, Woodall failed to do so and therefore he failed to preserve error. In contrast, the seven other defendants did give an indication of what they intended to elicit from the witness through cross examination, so they had properly preserved error on their claims. Thus, the court of appeals was reversed in the Woodall’s case, and affirmed in everyone else’s.

[Click on the Appellant's names for the CCA case info in Holmes, Woodall, Williams, Contreras, Harlow, Rodriguez, Brice, and Widener.]