State v. Catherine Jane Acton ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                  IN THE
    TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 10-08-00069-CR
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellant
    v.
    CATHERINE JANE ACTON,
    Appellee
    From the County Court at Law No. 2
    Brazos County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 05-05053-CRM-CCL2
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Catherine Jane Acton was charged with driving while intoxicated. TEX. PENAL
    CODE ANN. § 49.04 (Vernon 2003). She filed a motion to suppress claiming that the
    blood taken from her, which showed her blood alcohol content, was taken without her
    consent. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion to suppress, and the State
    appealed that ruling. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.01 (Vernon Supp. 2008).
    Because the trial court’s finding is supported by the record, the order of suppression is
    affirmed.
    BACKGROUND
    Acton was involved in a car accident. She had to be extracted from her car and
    taken to the hospital. She seemed dazed and confused at the scene and her speech was
    slurred. She also had a cut on her chin.
    A law enforcement officer spoke with Acton at the hospital. Acton smelled of
    alcohol. Acton initially did not know where she had been before the accident but told
    the officer that she had been at a friend’s house. Shortly after that statement was made,
    she told the officer she had been at her apartment complex pool, swimming and
    drinking with some friends. Acton admitted to the officer that she had had two glasses
    of wine while watching a football game. When the officer questioned her about a
    partially filled bottle of rum found in her car, she stated that it had been there from a
    few days earlier. The officer noticed that Acton had a bandage on her arm from a blood
    draw. He asked her if she would sign a medical release so he could look at the results.
    Acton initially agreed to sign the release but later declined.
    MOTION TO SUPPRESS
    In its sole issue on appeal, the State argues that the trial court abused its
    discretion in suppressing the blood evidence.
    Evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress showed that prior
    to arriving at the hospital, Acton refused an IV. She also refused sutures for her cut
    chin. It was noted in the hospital records that “[p]atient states she would rather have
    [the] risk of having more of a scar than to have [an] injection or sutures.” Hospital
    records also showed that Acton was “terrified of needles” and that it was “difficult to
    get the blood draw for the lab work.”
    Acton testified at the hearing. She stated that she hates needles and did not want
    her blood drawn and did not consent to any blood being drawn. She agreed that the
    State v. Acton                                                                      Page 2
    blood was taken over her refusal and objection. She also stated that she refused the IV
    and the sutures because of her fear of needles.
    In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court
    must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. State v.
    Kelly, 
    204 S.W.3d 808
    , 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). When a trial court makes fact
    findings, the appellate court determines whether the evidence (viewed in the light most
    favorable to the trial court's ruling) supports these fact findings. Id at 818, 819. The
    appellate court then reviews the trial court's legal ruling de novo unless the trial court's
    supported-by-the-record explicit fact findings are also dispositive of the legal ruling. 
    Id. The trial
    court found that Acton did not consent to the drawing of her blood.
    There is ample evidence in the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the trial
    court’s ruling, to support that finding. The trial court’s finding is also dispositive of the
    legal ruling. Accordingly, the State’s sole issue is overruled.
    CONCLUSION
    Having overruled the State’s issue, we affirm the trial court’s order suppressing
    the blood evidence.
    TOM GRAY
    Chief Justice
    Before Chief Justice Gray,
    Justice Reyna, and
    Justice Davis
    Affirmed
    Opinion delivered and filed July 8, 2009
    Do not publish
    [CR25]
    State v. Acton                                                                         Page 3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-08-00069-CR

Filed Date: 7/8/2009

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/10/2015