Toler v. State

1

LLOYD ADAM TOLER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 06-22-00154-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana

June 16, 2023

Do Not Publish

Date Submitted: May 26, 2023

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. CR2100144

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JEFF RAMBIN JUSTICE

A Hunt County jury convicted Lloyd Adam Toler of driving while intoxicated (DWI), and he was assessed a sentence of 180 days' confinement. On appeal, Toler challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We find sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding. Because the judgment requires modification, we will affirm the trial court's judgment, as modified.

I. The Evidence at Trial

Hunt County Deputy Sheriffs Sam Stephens and Eddie Wade Jones responded to a report of a reckless driver on Interstate 30 in the vicinity of Caddo Mills around 11:00 p.m. on September 11, 2020. The recording from the deputies' dash camera showed that, when the pickup driven by Toler was first observed on the south service road of Interstate 30, it swerved into the left, oncoming-traffic lane, then swerved back into the right lane as an oncoming automobile approached. After the oncoming automobile passed, Toler's pickup returned to the oncoming-traffic lane for around ten seconds, swerved back into the right lane briefly, then returned to the oncoming-traffic lane. At that point, the deputies engaged their overhead lights to pursue Toler's pickup. Toler then swerved to the left, grassy shoulder where he drove for around ten seconds, then swerved across the oncoming-traffic lane and into the right lane. Toler then rolled to a stop in the right lane.

As the officers approached the stopped vehicle, Toler opened the driver's side door. After a short conversation, the pickup began moving forward, and Jones reached into the pickup, engaged the emergency brake, and turned the engine off. When Toler exited the pickup, he stumbled, and the officers assisted him to the side of the bed of the pickup, on which he leaned for support. As he talked with the officers, Toler's body swayed from side to side. Throughout the stop, Toler had difficulty walking and standing, stumbled at times, and almost fell. Eventually he laid down on his back on the roadway, straddling the right lane and the shoulder. At one point, Toler placed a cigarette in his mouth backward and attempted to light the filter.

The deputies testified that Toler was lethargic, slow to respond, and very slow to answer questions and that he had slurred, incoherent speech. Jones testified that Toler also thought that he was in Greenville, rather than near Caddo Mills. Toler denied consuming alcohol but told Stephens that he had taken too much of his prescription pills. Toler told them that he took medication for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and depression. Both officers opined that Toler had lost the normal control over his physical faculties because of his inability to keep his balance, his tendency to fall, his inability to walk without assistance, and his lack of simple motor skills. They also opined that he had lost the normal control over his mental faculties because of his inability to remember, his delayed responses to simple questions, and his confusion as to where he was. Because they suspected Toler was driving while intoxicated, the deputies contacted the Texas Department of Public Safety (TDPS) to conduct a DWI investigation.

TDPS Trooper Greg Joyner testified that he was called to assist the deputies with a reckless, and possibly impaired, driver. After talking with the deputies, Joyner approached Toler, who was laying on his back in the roadway. As he talked to him, Toler's eyes were closed. Joyner described his speech pattern as extremely slow and thick-tongued. Toler told Joyner that he had taken too much of his medications for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and that he also took anti-depressants, including Seroquel. At one point, Toler stated that he was trying to have some fun. Joyner performed a horizontal gaze nystagmus field sobriety test on Toler after he was placed in an ambulance. Toler exhibited six out of six clues of intoxication.^[1]Joyner opined that Toler was intoxicated and that he had lost the normal use of his physical and mental faculties based on the deputies' description of the traffic stop and Toler's driving behavior; Toler's laying lethargic on the street, red eyes, dilated pupils, and speech pattern; and the clues observed in the HGN test. After Toler was taken to a hospital, Joyner obtained a blood specimen from him at 1:09 the following morning.

Taylor Schwartz, a forensic scientist at the TDPS Crime Laboratory in Tyler, analyzed Toler's blood specimen for the presence of alcohol. She determined that the specimen had 0.025 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. Although she could not say whether Toler was impaired without more information, she opined that it is possible that a person could be impaired below 0.08 grams per 100 milliliters.

Dana Baxter, a forensic scientist at the TDPS Crime Laboratory in Austin, analyzed Toler's blood specimen for the presence of drugs. She testified that, in her initial test for the presence of ten broad categories of drugs, including such substances as amphetamine, barbiturates, and opiates, none were detected. She also performed a target qualitative test because the TDPS trooper had listed Seroquel as a suspected drug. Baxter explained that the test performed for the presence of Seroquel also tests for the presence of twenty-four other drugs, including citalopram. When this test was performed, the presence of citalopram was detected.

Baxter explained that the test for those twenty-five drugs will not yield the amount of any drug in the system because they set the cutoff at the low end of the therapeutic range that a physician would prescribe for his patient. As a result, it is at a concentration that can affect a person. She explained that, if a doctor prescribes anti-anxiety medicine, then the therapeutic range is enough to treat the patient's anxiety.

She also testified that citalopram is prescribed for depression and that it affects the body by elevating the mood to lessen the depression. She noted that some possible side effects were dizziness, drowsiness, and slowed reaction times. Baxter testified that the warning label for citalopram says to avoid drinking alcohol while taking it because it can increase the effects of alcohol. She opined that citalopram's side effects of dizziness, drowsiness, and slowed reaction times could be increased if taken with alcohol. She also opined that a person could lose their mental or physical faculties while in the therapeutic range of the drug.

Baxter acknowledged that impairment cannot be based solely on her laboratory report. She also acknowledged that she did not know whether Toler experienced the drug's side effects.

II. Standard of Review

"In evaluating legal sufficiency, we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment to determine whether any rational jury could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Williamson v. State, 589 S.W.3d 292, 297 (Tex. App -Texarkana 2019, pet. ref d) (citing Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.)). “Our rigorous legal sufficiency review focuses on the quality of the evidence presented.” Id. (citing Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 917-18 (Cochran, J., concurring)). "We examine legal sufficiency under the direction of the Brooks opinion, while giving deference to the responsibility of the jury 'to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.'" Id. (quoting Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)).

"Legal sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge." Id. at 298 (quoting Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). "The 'hypothetically correct' jury charge is 'one that accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State's burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State's theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried.'" Id. (quoting Malik, 953 S.W.2d at 240).

"In our review, we consider 'events occurring before, during and after the commission of the offense and may rely on actions of the defendant which show an understanding and common design to do the prohibited act.'" Id. at 297 (quoting Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13). "It is not required that each fact 'point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction.'" Id. (quoting Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13). "Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are equally probative in establishing the guilt of a defendant, and guilt can be established by circumstantial evidence alone." Id. (citing Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13). "Further, 'we must consider all of the evidence admitted at trial, even if that evidence was improperly admitted.'" Id. (quoting Fowler v. State, 517 S.W.3d 167, 176 (Tex. App -Texarkana 2017), rev'd in part by 544 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018)).

The jury, as "the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony[, could] 'believe all of [the] witnesses' testimony, portions of it, or none of it.'" Id. (second alteration in original) (q...