horizontal gaze nystagmus test in Texas

2006See Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759, 769 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (en banc) (stating that a witness may testify regarding a defendant’s performance on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test if the witness is qualified as an expert in the administration and technique of the test); Plouff v. State, 192 S.W.3d 213, 223 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet. h.) (stating that an officer’s testimony based on observations of the one-leg stand and walk-and-turn test “is considered lay witness opinion testimony under Tex.R.

2006See Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759, 769 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (en banc) (stating that a witness may testify regarding a defendant's performance on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test if the witness is qualified as an expert in the administration and technique of the test); Plouff v. State, 192 S.W.3d 213, 223 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet. h.) (stating that an officer's testimony based on observations of the one-leg stand and walk-and-turn test "is considered lay witness opinion testimony under TEX.R.

2015Furthermore, Officer Flugrath testified that when Thacker performed the horizontal- gaze-nystagmus test, he displayed all six indicators of intoxication, see Plouff v. State, 192 S.W.3d 213, 219 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (noting that nystagmus test is valid scientific test), and Officer Flugrath related that Thacker refused to take several of the standardized field- sobriety tests and refused to voluntarily provide a blood sample, cf. Bartlett v. State, 270 S.W.3d 147, 153 (Tex. Crim.

2006See Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759, 769 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (en banc) (stating that a witness may testify regarding a defendant’s performance on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test if the witness is qualified as an expert in the administration and technique of the test); Plouff v. State, 192 S.W.3d 213, 223 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet. h.) (stating that an officer’s testimony based on observations of the one-leg stand and walk-and-turn test “is considered lay witness opinion testimony under Tex.R.

2008See Loserth v. State , 963 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998).

2008See Loserth v. State , 963 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998).

2008See Ross , 32 S.W.3d at 858 . Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â As to the walk and turn and one-leg stand tests, appellant contends that the ground upon which Catalona performed the tests was not level and that this invalidates the test results.

2008See Ross , 32 S.W.3d at 858 .

2022See Kirsch v. State, 306 S.W.3d 738, 745 (Tex. Crim.

2020See id. (indicating that defendant’s swaying and inability to follow directions on field sobriety tests permit the fact finder to infer that appellant was intoxicated at the time of driving and the time of the blood alcohol test).9 The video supported Officer Wilkinson’s testimony that Appellant “dozed off” while he was performing the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.

2010See Youens v. State, 988 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“an officer trained in administering the HGN test may give his opinion that a suspect is under the influence of alcohol, but may not testify to that suspect’s exact blood alcohol content”); Fernandez v. State, 915 S.W.2d 572, 576 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (portable breath test evidence admissible to establish presence of alcohol but not alcohol concentration).

2010See Youens v. State, 988 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) ("an officer trained in administering the HGN test may give his opinion that a suspect is under the influence of alcohol, but may not testify to that suspect's exact blood alcohol content"); Fernandez v. State, 915 S.W.2d 572, 576 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (portable breath test evidence admissible to establish presence of alcohol but not alcohol concentration).

2010See Youens v. State, 988 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“an officer trained in administering the HGN test may give his opinion that a suspect is under the influence of alcohol, but may not testify to that suspect’s exact blood alcohol content”); Fernandez v. State, 915 S.W.2d 572, 576 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (portable breath test evidence admissible to establish presence of alcohol but not alcohol concentration).

2010See Youens v. State, 988 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) ("an officer trained in administering the HGN test may give his opinion that a suspect is under the influence of alcohol, but may not testify to that suspect's exact blood alcohol content"); Fernandez v. State, 915 S.W.2d 572, 576 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (portable breath test evidence admissible to establish presence of alcohol but not alcohol concentration).

2006A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether a witness qualifies as an expert, Sterling v. State, 800 S.W.2d 513, 521 (Tex. Crim.

2006A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether a witness qualifies as an expert, Sterling v. State , 800 S.W.2d 513, 521 (Tex. Crim.

2013App. P. 47.4. [2] See Miranda v. Arizona , 348 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). [3] Officer Clements testified that Howard’s score of four out of six clues on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test indicated intoxication and that her performances on the walk-and-turn and one-legged-stand tests resulted, respectively, in eight of eight possible clues and four of four possible clues.

2010The horizontal gaze nystagmus test showed that Rambo’s eyes were tracking unequally, which indicated a possible head 2  See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1612 (1966). 2 injury.

2011See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S. Ct. 2781 , 61 L.

2011See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S. Ct. 2781 , 61 L.

2024See Parker v. State, 206 S.W.3d 593, 596 (Tex. Crim.

2020See Melcher, 153 S.W.3d at 442 (indicating that a law enforcement officer’s testimony that appellant failed field sobriety tests and had the smell of alcohol on his breath was probative of appellant’s intoxication).

2018Ketchum also said that appellant seemed to have her mental faculties at the scene and, aside from admitting that she had had ten beers, seemed to have her physical faculties at the jail. –6– But at this stage “[t]he issue is not whether the defense evidence ‘outweighs’ the State’s evidence.” Watkins v. State, 741 S.W.2d 546, 549 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, pet. ref’d).

2015Furthermore, Officer Flugrath testified that when Thacker performed the horizontal- gaze-nystagmus test, he displayed all six indicators of intoxication, see Plouff v. State, 192 S.W.3d 213, 219 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (noting that nystagmus test is valid scientific test), and Officer Flugrath related that Thacker refused to take several of the standardized field- sobriety tests and refused to voluntarily provide a blood sample, cf. Bartlett v. State, 270 S.W.3d 147, 153 (Tex. Crim.

2015In Soliz v. State, “Trooper Mingst testified that he witnessed four signs of appellant’s intoxication: (1) appellant smelled of alcohol, (2) appellant admitted to consuming alcohol, (3) appellant showed six of six clues on the HGN test, and (4) the PBT showed that appellant’s blood 53 Amador v. State, 275 S.W.3d 872, 878 (Tex. Crim.

2011See Ellis v. State, 86 S.W.3d 759, 760-61 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, pet. ref'd).

2011See Ellis v. State, 86 S.W.3d 759, 760-61 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, pet. ref'd).

2009Officer Kuhn reported that he had probable cause to arrest or detain Axt because of Axt’s “slurred speech, odor of alcoholic beverage emitted from breath and person, [and] 16  Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tex. Crim.

2009Officer Kuhn reported that he had probable cause to arrest or detain Axt because of Axt’s “slurred speech, odor of alcoholic beverage emitted from breath and person, [and] 16  Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tex. Crim.

2008See Compton , 120 S.W.3d at 378 ( citing Preface to Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep’t of Transp., DWI DETECTION AND STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING STUDENT MANUAL).           In the present case, appellant argues that Catalona failed to perform the requisite number of passes in administering the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, thus, making the test unreliable as an indicator of intoxication.

2007He observed six out of six clues in the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, five out of eight clues in the walk-and-turn, and two out of four clues on the one-leg-stand test. (2) See Douthitt v. State , 127 S.W.3d 327, 337 (Tex.App.--Austin 2004, no pet.)(results of standard field sobriety tests reflect the degree to which a defendant's normal mental or physical faculties are impaired by an intoxicant).

2006See Lorenz v. State , 176 S.W.3d 492 , 495 B 96 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref = d) (holding evidence of bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage, six clues on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, and appellant = s own admission of some alcohol consumption factually sufficient to support DWI conviction).

2006He admitted that he was intoxicated when he arrived in court on August 10, that he was late for court that day because “I guess I was passed out,” and that his attorney had to come by and get him to go to his court hearing. 4: See Hawkins v. State , 964 S.W.2d 767, 769-70 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1998, pet. ref’d) (listing numerous constitutional rights held to have been forfeited by non-assertion at trial). 5: Rule of evidence 103(d) provides that “[i]n a criminal case, nothing in these rules precludes taking notice of fundamental errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought