11 2007 49 04 2003 49 09 2010 60 800 DWI v. << (2011)

Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.

On October 11, 2007, appellant Brad Paul Doucette was arrested for driving while intoxicated, and he was later charged by information for driving while intoxicated, second offense.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (West 2003), § 49.09(a) (West Supp.2010).  A jury convicted Doucette, and the court sentenced him to 60 days in the Hays County Jail and assessed a fine of $800.  In a single issue, Doucette argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial following publication to the jury of portions of an audio-video recording of the traffic stop that led to his arrest.  We affirm the judgment of conviction.  At a pretrial hearing, Doucette's motion to suppress the recording of his traffic stop was denied.  Early in Doucette's jury trial, the State offered, and the trial court admitted, the police car audio-video recording into evidence.  The record gives no indication that the trial judge put any limitation or qualification on the recording's admission;  however, the parties acknowledge an agreement outside the record that the prosecution would redact various references in the audio recording.  It appears that the parties did not make specific agreements as to particular audio portions to be redacted, but rather agreed generally that State's counsel would redact the recording to comport with the motion in limine.  Of relevance here, the order in limine covered:  Any reference or evidence concerning any extraneous offense or acts of misconduct of the Defendant not specifically mentioned in the complaint or information filed in this case including but not limited to any prior DWI arrests, any mention of a suspended license, license surcharges, or court dates in Dallas.  State's counsel redacted the audio at three points in the recording, but conceded his oversight in not redacting several later references on the recording with which defense counsel now takes issue.  At various times throughout the trial, both the State and the defense played portions of the previously admitted recording for the jury, without objection.  When the State first offered the recording, defense counsel stated without qualification that there was “no objection

NO. 03-10-00176-CR

Decided: March 09, 2011

Before Justices Henson, Rose and Goodwin