I. INFORMATION/CHARGING INSTRUMENT

1. MENTAL OR PHYSICAL FACULTIES
2. "PUBLIC PLACE" IS SPECIFIC ENOUGH
3. STATE DOES NOT HAVE TO SPECIFY WHICH DEFINITION OF INTOXICATION
   IT IS RELYING ON IN THE INFORMATION
4. DEFINITION IN JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL
5. NO MENTAL STATE NECESSARY IN DWI CHARGE
   1. PRE §49.04
   2. POST §49.04
6. UNOBJECTED TO ERROR IN CHARGING INSTRUMENT
7. READING DWI ENHANCEMENT AT WRONG TIME

II. VOIR DIRE

1. PROPER QUESTION/STATEMENT
2. IMPROPER QUESTION/STATEMENT
3. CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE
   1. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
   2. ONE WITNESS CASE
   3. JURORS WHO WOULD REQUIRE BREATH TEST TO CONVICT
   4. JURORS ABILITY TO CONSIDER FULL RANGE OF PUNISHMENT

III. DWI ROADBLOCKS

1. ARE ILLEGAL
2. AVOIDING ROADBLOCK CAN PROVIDE BASIS FOR STOP

IV. TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS

V. OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE CHART

VI. BASIS FOR VEHICLE STOP

1. LEGAL STANDARD
2. TICKETS THAT PROVIDED BASIS FOR STOP INADMISSIBLE
3. INFORMATION FROM CITIZEN/POLICE RADIO/ANONYMOUS CALL
   1. SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR STOP
   2. IDENTIFIED CITIZEN--CREDIBLE AND RELIABLE
   3. DETAILS OF POLICE BROADCAST ARE ADMISSIBLE
   4. ANONYMOUS TIP FROM EMS TECHNICIAN
   5. ANONYMOUS TIP FROM HITCHHIKER
   6. ANONYMOUS TIP FROM TRUCK DRIVER
4. BAD DRIVING NEED NOT = CRIMINAL OFFENSE
5. "COMMUNITY CARE-TAKING FUNCTION" (CCF)
   1. APPLIES
   2. DOESN'T APPLY
6. OFFICER'S ARREST AUTHORITY WHEN OUTSIDE JURISDICTION
   1. FOR A TRAFFIC OFFENSE
      
      1. STOPS MADE BEFORE 9-01-05 = NO
      2. STOPS MADE AFTER 9-01-05 = YES
   2. CAN STOP AND ARREST FOR "BREACH OF PEACE"
   3. TO MAKE ARREST FOR DWI
   4. FAILURE TO NOTIFY OFFICERS WITHIN JURISDICTION DOES NOT VIOLATE EXCLUSIONARY RULE
   5. CITY VS. COUNTY-WIDE JURISDICTION
      
      1. COUNTY-WIDE
      2. OFFICER WITHIN JURISDICTION'S PARTICIPATION
      3. HOT PURSUIT
7. PRETEXT STOPS - NO LONGER BASIS FOR SUPPRESSION
8. OPERATING VEHICLE IN UNSAFE CONDITION
9. FAILING TO DIM LIGHT
10. RAPID ACCELERATION/SPINNING TIRES
11. WEAVING WITHIN LANE
    1. YES
    2. NO
12. DEFECTIVE TAIL LAMP AS BASIS FOR STOP
    1. NO
    2. YES
13. MUST RADAR EVIDENCE MEET KELLY TEST?
    1. YES
    2. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF RADAR
    3. RADAR MEETS 1^ST PRONG OF KELLY TEST
14. CITIZEN'S ARREST FOR 'BREACH OF THE PEACE' AS BASIS FOR STOP
15. TURNING/EXITING WITHOUT A SIGNAL
    1. YES
    2. NO
16. "FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY"- SUFFICIENT DETAIL?
17. DRIVING UNDER THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT
    1. INSUFFICIENT ON THESE FACTS
    2. SUFFICIENT ON THESE FACTS
18. APPROACHING A VEHICLE THAT IS ALREADY STOPPED
    1. ENCOUNTER
    2. NOT AN ENCOUNTER
19. PLATE OBSCURING STATE SLOGAN AND IMAGES PROVIDES BASIS FOR STOP
20. DRIVERS LICENSE CHECKPOINT
21. VEHICLE STOPPED AT LIGHT
22. ONE OF THREE BRAKE LIGHTS NOT WORKING
23. OBJECTIVE FACTS CAN TRUMP OFFICER'S SUBJECTIVE BELIEF AND SUPPORT STOP
24. REVVING ENGINE AND LURCHING FORWARD INSUFFICIENT BASIS FOR STOP

VII. PORTABLE ALCOHOL SENSOR DEVICES

VIII. WARRANTLESS ARREST DWI SUSPECT - OFFENSE NOT VIEWED

1. BASED ON PUBLIC INTOXICATION THEORY
2. BASED ON "BREACH OF PEACE" THEORY
3. BASED ON "SUSPICIOUS PLACE" THEORY
   1. FRONT YARD
   2. PARKING LOT
   3. HOSPITAL
   4. THE DEFENDANT'S HOME
   5. ACCIDENT SCENE
4. NEED NOT ACTUALLY CHARGE SUSPECT WITH PUBLIC INTOXICATION
5. IMPLIED CONSENT LAW STILL APPLIES

IX. VIDEO

1. PARTS OF PREDICATE CAN BE INFERRED
2. NEW PREDICATE REPLACES EDWARDS
3. OPERATOR QUALIFICATIONS
4. SUPPRESSIBLE ITEMS
   1. INVOCATION OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL
   2. INVOCATION OF RIGHT TO TERMINATE INTERVIEW
   3. EXTRANEOUS OFFENSES - IF OBJECTED TO
5. NOT SUPPRESSIBLE
   1. AUDIO OF FSTs
   2. FST REFUSAL
   3. VIDEO PORTION AFTER AUDIO SUPPRESSED
   4. INVOCATION OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING BT REFUSAL
   5. VIDEO PORTION ADMISSIBLE EVEN IF AUDIO DID NOT RECORD
   6. FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS ARE NON-TESTIMONIAL
   7. VERBAL FSTs TESTS/ALPHABET & COUNTING ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL
   8. RIGHT TO COUNSEL - MUST BE CLEARLY INVOKED
   9. RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT MAY NOT BE SELECTIVELY INVOKED
6. ABSENCE OF VIDEOTAPE
   1. NOT GROUNDS FOR ACQUITTAL
   2. UNLESS DESTRUCTION OF TAPE IN BAD FAITH
   3. NO JURY INSTRUCTION FOR FAILURE TO TAPE
7. SURREPTITIOUS AUDIO RECORDINGS
   1. PRE-ARREST
   2. POST-ARREST
8. DEFENSE RIGHT TO VIEW TAPE BEFORE TRIAL
9. TAPE MADE IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE
10. PROVIDING DEFENDANT WITH COPY OF DWI VIDEOTAPE
    1. DEFENDANT NEED ONLY BE GIVEN "ACCESS"
    2. ACCESS TO THE TAPE IS NOT REQUIRED UNLESS THERE IS "CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION"
11. NO SOUND = NO PROBLEM
12. MOBILE VIDEO CAMERA TAPE ADMISSIBLE
13. STATE MAY SUBPOENA/OFFER DEFENDANT'S COPY
14. LOSING VIDEOTAPE BETWEEN TRIAL AND APPEAL DOES NOT REQUIRE NEW TRIAL
15. PROBLEM OF OTHER STOPS BEING VISIBLE ON DWI TAPE
16. VIDEO PART OF TAPE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE WITHOUT OPERATOR'S TESTIMONY
17. INABILITY TO ID ALL BACKGROUND VOICES NOT A PROBLEM
18. OFFICER'S NARRATIVE ON PERFORMANCE OF FSTs
    1. CUMULATIVE
    2. INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY

X. IN-COURT DEMONSTRATIONS/EXHIBITS

1. FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS
2. SMELL TEST
3. SMELL & TASTE TEST
4. CHART OF SYMPTOMS OF INTOXICATION INADMISSIBLE
5. CHART OF SYMPTOMS OF INTOXICATION-DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
6. DEMONSTRATION OF DEFENDANT'S SPEECH

XI. ONE WITNESS SUFFICIENT (OPINION TESTIMONY)

XII. IMPEACHING POLICE OFFICER

1. FINANCIAL MOTIVE
2. QUOTAS
3. C EMPLOYMENT AND DISCIPLINARY HISTORY

XIII. IMPEACHING DEFENDANT AND BOND FORFEITURE EVIDENCE

1. PROPER
2. IMPROPER
3. EVIDENCE OF BOND FORFEITURE ADMISSIBLE

XIV. STATEMENTS BY DEFENDANT

1. PRE-ARREST STATEMENTS
   1. ADMISSIBLE
   2. INADMISSIBLE, "CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION"
2. "MIRANDA WARNINGS" - RECITATION MUST BE ACCURATE
3. ACCIDENT REPORTS STATUTE HAS NO EFFECT ON ADMISSIBILITY OF DRIVER'S ORAL STATEMENTS
4. DOES HANDCUFFING DEFENDANT PLACE HIM IN "CUSTODY" FOR MIRANDA PURPOSES?
   1. NO
   2. YES
5. STATEMENTS ABOUT DRUG USE INADMISSIBLE WITHOUT EXPERT TESTIMONY

XV. FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS

1. HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS
   1. IS ADMISSIBLE
   2. OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AN OPHTHALMOLOGIST TO TESTIFY
   3. DOES THE OFFICER NEED TO BE CERTIFIED?
      
      1. NO, BUT RULE 702 REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET
      2. CERTIFICATION FROM A TRAINING COURSE WILL SUFFICE
      3. OFFICER MUST HAVE SOME CERTIFICATION
   4. IMPROPER FOR TRIAL COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF TEST'S RELIABILITY
   5. WITNESS CAN'T CORRELATE TEST TO BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION
   6. VERTICAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS/RESTING NYSTAGMUS
   7. IMPACT OF FAILING TO PERFORM FSTs PER NHTSA GUIDELINES
2. ONE LEG STAND = LAY WITNESS TESTIMONY
3. WALK AND TURN = LAY WITNESS TESTIMONY
4. OFFICER MAY TESTIFY ABOUT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES FINDINGS RE: THE RELIABILITY OF FST'S
5. OFFICERS MAY COERCE SUSPECT INTO PERFORMING FST's
6. REFUSAL TO PERFORM FSTs = PC TO ARREST AND EVIDENCE OF GUILT

XVI. SPECIFIC ELEMENTS

1. PUBLIC ROAD - PLACE
   1. PARKING LOTS
   2. MILITARY BASES
   3. PARK AS A PUBLIC PLACE
   4. DRIVEWAY
   5. MARINA
   6. GATED COMMUNITY
2. PROOF OF "STATE"
3. PROOF OF "MOTOR VEHICLE"
4. "NORMAL USE OF MENTAL OR PHYSICAL FACULTIES"
5. ADMISSIBILITY OF ILLEGAL DRUGS TO PROVE INTOXICATION

XVII. BREATH TEST

1. IMPLIED CONSENT LAW
2. BREATH TEST PREDICATE
3. INSTRUMENT CERTIFICATION
   1. NEW INSTRUMENT NEED NOT BE RE-CERTIFIED
   2. CERTIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS ADMISSIBLE
4. LIMITED RIGHT TO BLOOD TEST
   1. FAILURE TO ADVISE OF RIGHT TO BLOOD TEST
   2. NO RIGHT TO BLOOD TEST IN LIEU OF BREATH TEST
   3. OFFICERS CHOICE WHETHER BREATH OR BLOOD
5. MIRANDA WARNINGS
   1. NEED NOT GIVE PRIOR TO REQUEST FOR BREATH SAMPLE
   2. INVOCATION OF RIGHTS WILL NOT EXCLUDE REFUSAL
   3. NO RIGHT TO COUNSEL PRIOR TO DECIDING WHETHER TO GIVE SAMPLE
6. BREATH AMPULES NEED NOT BE PRESERVED
7. DIC-23 & DIC-24 WARNINGS
   1. REQUIREMENT THEY BE GIVEN IN WRITING RELATES ONLY TO ADMISSIBILITY OF REFUSALS
   2. FAILURE TO GIVE WARNINGS IN WRITING NOT NECESSARILY FATAL
   3. WRITTEN WARNINGS NEED NOT BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO REFUSAL
   4. THAT ARREST PRECEDE READING OF DIC-24 = FLEXIBLE
   5. DIC-24 NOTICE IN WRITING REQUIREMENT SATISFIED BY MAKING WRITTEN COPY "AVAILABLE"
   6. OFFICER WHO READS DIC-24 & REQUESTS SAMPLE NEED NOT BE ARRESTING OFFICER
   7. WARNINGS SHOULD BE GIVEN BY OFFICER-BUT....
   8. DIC-24 - WORDING .10 OR GREATER - IS CORRECT - THOUGH IT'S NOT TIED TO DRIVING
   9. ERROR IN SPANISH LANGUAGE VERSION OF THE WARNING DID NOT MAKE DEFENDANT'S CONSENT INVALID
   10. 10. COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE WARNINGS
       
       1. NEED TO BE GIVEN
       2. DON'T NEED TO BE GIVEN
   11. 11. DIC 23 & DIC 24 DOCUMENTS ARE NOT HEARSAY
   12. 12. URINE SAMPLE ADMISSIBLE WITHOUT EXPLANATION OF RIGHT TO REFUSE
8. NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW 210 LITERS OF BREATH
9. BREATH TEST NOT COERCED
   1. EXTRA WARNING REFERRED TO CONSEQUENCES OF PASSING NOT REFUSING
   2. NO EVIDENCE THAT ADDITIONAL WARNING ACTUALLY COERCED DEFENDANT
   3. NO EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT RELIED UPON EXTRA WARNING
   4. DEFENDANT GAVE SAMPLE, CONSEQUENCES UNDERSTATED
   5. AT MTS IT IS THE DEFENDANT'S BURDEN TO SHOW CONSENT TO GIVE BT WAS NOT VOLUNTARY
   6. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN OFFICER STATEMENT AND CONSENT
10. BREATH TEST FOUND TO BE COERCED
11. REFUSAL EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE
    1. AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT
    2. NO VIOLATION OF 5TH AMENDMENT
    3. REASON FOR REFUSAL AND CONDITION OF INSTRUMENT IRRELEVANT
    4. REFUSAL BASED ON INTOXICATION IS STILL A "REFUSAL"
    5. INTOXICATION MAY BE PRESUMED FROM BTR
12. LATE BREATH TEST - CAN BE SUFFICIENT
    1. LATE TEST NOT CONCLUSIVE BUT IS PROBATIVE
    2. AFTER 1 HOUR & 20 MINUTES
    3. AFTER 2 HOURS
    4. AFTER 2 HOURS & 15 MINUTES
    5. AFTER 2 HOURS & 30 MINUTES
    6. AFTER 4 HOURS & 30 MINUTES
    7. AFTER 7 HOURS
13. OBSERVATION PERIOD
    1. MORE THAN ONE OFFICER OBSERVATION REQUIREMENT
    2. NO NEED TO REPEAT ON 2ND TEST
    3. NO LONGER NECESSARY TO "OBSERVE" DEFENDANT FOR 15 MINUTES
14. BREATH TEST DELAY PRECLUDING BLOOD TEST
15. OFFICER MAY REQUEST MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF TEST
16. BREATH TEST ADMISSIBLE AS PROOF OF LOSS OF NORMAL
17. BREATH TEST RESULTS ADMISSIBILITY ISSUES
    1. BREATH TEST RESULT IS NOT HEARSAY
    2. PARTIAL TEST RESULTS INADMISSIBLE
    3. NEW TECHNICAL SUPERVISOR CAN LAY PREDICATE FOR OLD TESTS
18. KELLY V. STATE
    1. APPLIES TO BREATH TESTS
    2. FIRST TWO PRONGS OF KELLY TEST MET BY STATUTE
19. PROPER TO OFFER BT SLIPS TO SHOW NO RESULT OBTAINED
20. LOSS OF NORMAL & PER SE LAW EVIDENCE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
21. NO SAMPLE TAKEN = NO DUE PROCESS VIOLATION
22. FAILURE TO TIMELY RESPOND TO REPEATED BT REQUEST = REFUSAL
23. EXTRAPOLATION
    1. IS NOT NEEDED TO PROVE DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED UNDER CHEMICAL TEST DEFINITION
    2. PROBATIVE VALUE OF BT OUTWEIGHS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT
    3. PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE (A RIDICULOUS OPINION)
    4. EXTRAPOLATION TESTIMONY IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER KELLY, 824 S.W.2D 573 (TEX.CRIM.APP. 1992)
    5. EXTRAPOLATION EVIDENCE IMPROPERLY ADMITTED
    6. IMPROPER ADMISSION OF EXTRAPOLATION EVIDENCE NOT HARMLESS
    7. EVIDENCE OF DRUG INGESTION STILL RELEVANT WITHOUT EXTRAPOLATION
    8. EXTRAPOLATION EVIDENCE PROPERLY ADMITTED
24. OPERATOR NEED NOT UNDERSTAND SCIENCE BEHIND THE INSTRUMENT!
25. FAILURE TO NOTE TEMPERATURE
    1. OF REFERENCE SAMPLE = BT EXCLUDED
    2. OF SUSPECT & REFERENCE SAMPLE = BT NOT EXCLUDED

XVIII. BLOOD TEST

1. "REASONABLE BELIEF" STANDARD
2. ARREST AT THE HOSPITAL
   1. RESTRAINT WAS SUFFICIENT
   2. LATER RELEASE DID NOT NEGATE
3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR DRAWING MANDATORY BLOOD DO NOT APPLY
   1. WHEN DEFENDANT CONSENTS
   2. WHEN DEFENDANT IS NOT UNDER ARREST
   3. READING DIC-24 - EFFECT ON CONSENT
   4. READING DIC-24 AS EVIDENCE OF ARREST
4. PROCEDURE FOR TAKING BLOOD SAMPLE
   1. OFFICERS MAY USE FORCE TO TAKE BLOOD
   2. SAMPLE FROM UNCONSCIOUS DEFENDANT
   3. USE OF ALCOHOL SWAB BEFORE BLOOD DRAW
   4. WHAT CONSTITUTES A "QUALIFIED TECHNICIAN"
      
      1. "PHLEBOTOMIST" MAY BE A "QUALIFIED TECHNICIAN"
      2. "PHLEBOTOMIST" QUALIFICATION MUST STILL BE SHOWN
      3. RESTRICTIONS ON WHO MAY DRAW BLOOD ONLY APPLY IF SUSPECT IS UNDER ARREST
   5. EMS PERSONNEL MAY NOT DRAW MANDATORY BLOOD
5. HOSPITAL RECORDS
   1. ARE NOT PRIVILEGED
   2. OBTAINING RECORDS BY SUBPOENA
   3. RELEASE OF DEFENDANT'S HOSPITAL RECORDS IN RESPONSE TO A GJ SUBPOENA DOES NOT VIOLATE HIPAA
   4. NO HIPPA VIOLATION IN HOSPITAL PERSONNEL TELLING POLICE BREATH-ALCOHOL CONTENT WITHOUT SUBPOENA
6. CHAIN OF CUSTODY REQUIREMENTS
   1. BLOOD TESTED IS SAME AS BLOOD DRAWN
   2. NOT NECESSARY THAT PERSON WHO DREW BLOOD TESTIFY
   3. GAPS IN CHAIN GO TO "WEIGHT" NOT ADMISSIBILITY
   4. NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW WHO DREW THE BLOOD
   5. NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW WHO DREW OR TESTED THE BLOOD!
7. SANITARY PLACE REQUIREMENT
8. SERUM-BLOOD TEST
9. HOSPITAL DRAWN SAMPLE ASSAULT
10. ACQUIESCENCE TO HOSPITAL BLOOD DRAW = CONSENT
11. BLOOD TAKEN PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT
    1. IS PROPER
    2. FAILURE TO NOTE TIME OF STOP NOT NECESSARILY FATAL TO WARRANT
12. DIC-24 NEED NOT BE READ BEFORE MANDATORY BLOOD DRAW
13. ONLY ONE SAMPLE MAY BE DRAWN UNDER MANDATORY BLOOD LAW

XIX. EXPERT TESTIMONY

1. STATE EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY .08 = LOSS OF NORMAL = PROPER
2. IMPEACHMENT - PRIOR TESTIMONY (JOHN CASTLE)
3. EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT DWI VIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED
4. DEFENSE EXPERT OPENED DOOR TO DEFENDANT'S ALCOHOLISM
5. RESULTS OF DEFENSE EXPERT'S EXPERIMENT PROPERLY EXCLUDED

XX. DEFENSES

1. ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE
2. NECESSITY DEFENSE
3. INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION DEFENSE
4. INSANITY/AUTOMOTISM
5. NO "VOLUNTARY ACT"

XXI. JURY CHARGE

1. OBSERVATION PERIOD
   1. NO CHARGE REQUIRED
   2. CHARGE REQUIRED
2. ALTERNATIVE CAUSATION = NO CHARGE
   1. IN GENERAL
   2. FATIGUE
3. CHARGE ON WORKING CONDITION OF INSTRUMENT
   1. NOT ENTITLED TO SUCH A CHARGE
   2. ENTITLED TO CHARGE AS TO DPS REGULATIONS
4. NO CHARGE ON BLOOD OR URINE IN BREATH TEST CASE
5. SYNERGISTIC CHARGES
   1. PROPER
   2. NOT FOR "FATIGUE"
   3. NOT FOR "THEORY OF INTOXICATION NOT ALLEGED"
6. GENERAL VERDICT FORM
7. SEPARATE VERDICT FORMS?
8. DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION INSTRUCTION
9. MOTOR VEHICLE AS A DEADLY WEAPON IN A DWI CASE
   1. IS PROPER
   2. MAY OR MAY NOT BE PROPER?
   3. IS NOT PROPER
   4. NOTICE MUST BE ADEQUATE AND TIMELY
10. NO DEFINITION OF "NORMAL USE" SHOULD BE GIVEN
11. NO SUCH THING AS "ATTEMPTED DWI"
12. NO CHARGE ON INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION AND AUTOMATISM DEFENSE IN THIS DWI/PRESCRIPTION DRUG CASE
13. NO MEDICAL EXCUSE INSTRUCTION
14. NO JURY INSTRUCTION ON FAILURE TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE
15. NO DEFINITION OF "OPERATING"
16. NO JURY INSTRUCTION ON BTR CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE
17. ERROR TO CHARGE ON CONCURRENT CAUSATION IN DWI CASE
18. NOT ENTITLED TO A CCP 38.23 INSTRUCTION

XXII. JURY ARGUMENT

1. PERMISSIBLE
   1. DEFENDANT FAILED TO BLOW BECAUSE HE KNEW HE WOULD FAIL
   2. DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO DO FSTs ON VIDEO
   3. DEFENDANT'S REFUSAL TO DO ANYTHING (i.e. FSTs, BT)
   4. DEFENDANT'S TRYING TO LOOK GOOD ON TAPE
   5. JURY DOES NOT HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS ON THEORY OF INTOXICATION
   6. TESTIMONY REGARDING AND ARGUMENT ABOUT DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO CALL ITS EXPERT WAS PROPER
2. IMPERMISSIBLE

XXIII. PROBATION ELIGIBLE

XXIV. PRIORS/ENHANCEMENTS

1. PROVING DEFENDANT IS PERSON NAMED IN JUDGMENT
   1. I.D. MUST BE BASED ON MORE THAN "SAME NAME"
   2. BOOK-IN CARD MUST BE TIED TO JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
   3. PROOF OF ID POSSIBLE WITHOUT PRINTS OR PHOTOS
   4. COMPUTER PRINTOUT AS PROOF OF PRIOR CONVICTION
2. PRIORS FOR WHICH DEFERRED ADJUDICATION GIVEN
3. USE OF DPS RECORDS TO PROVE PRIORS
   1. FOR PURPOSE OF TYING DEFENDANT TO J & S
   2. DPS RECORDS ALONE WITHOUT J & S - NOT ENOUGH
   3. DPS RECORDS NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER COLE
4. FAXED COPY OF JUDGMENT & SENTENCE ADMISSIBLE
5. ENHANCEMENT OF FELONY DWI WITH NON-DWI PRIORS
6. ERROR IN ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPH NOT FATAL
   1. WRONG DATE ALLEGED
   2. WRONG CASE NUMBER ALLEGED
   3. WRONG STATE ALLEGED
   4. WRONG CHARGING INSTRUMENT ALLEGED
7. APPEAL OF REVOKED DWI DOESN'T BAR ITS USE FOR ENHANCEMENT
8. FELONY DWI
   1. ORDER OF ENHANCEMENTS
   2. UNDERLYING DWI PRIORS ARE ADMISSIBLE IN GUILT/INNOCENCE STAGE
   3. DEFENDANT'S AGREEMENT TO STIPULATE TO PRIORS DOES PRECLUDE THEIR BEING ADMITTED
   4. STIPULATION SHOULD BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE
   5. TWO PRIORS THAT ARISE OUT OF A SINGLE CRIMINAL ACT MAY BE USED TO ENHANCE TO A FELONY
   6. JUDGE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO FIND PRIOR CONVICTION TRUE WHEN ISSUE NOT SUBMITTED TO JURY
   7. STIPULATING TO PRIORS WAIVES 10 YEAR OBJECTION
   8. JURY INSTRUCTION MUST ADDRESS THE STIPULATION
   9. DEFENDANT WHO STIPULATES TO PRIORS ON CONDITION THEY NOT BE MENTIONED WAIVES ABILITY TO COMPLAIN THEY WERE NOT PROVED
   10. 10. PROPER TO USE FEDERAL DWI CONVICTIONS FOR ENHANCEMENT
   11. 11. DATES OF PRIOR DWI'S ARE NOT ELEMENTS OF FELONY DWI
9. LIMITS ON USE OF DWI PRIORS FOR ENHANCEMENT
   1. PRIOR FELONY DWI MAY BE USED TO ENHANCE FELONY UNDER PENAL CODE SECTION 12.42
   2. SAME PRIOR CANNOT BE USED TWICE
   3. WHAT IS NOT "USING A PRIOR TWICE"
10. OPEN CONTAINER
    1. SUFFICIENT PROOF OF
    2. EFFECT OF IMPROPER READING OF OPEN CONTAINER ENHANCEMENT IN GUILT INNOCENSE PHASE
11. RE-OFFERING EVIDENCE FROM G/I PHASE
12. DEFECT IN WORDING OF JUDGMENT/PROBATION ORDER = BAD PRIOR
    1. YES
    2. NO
    3. NOT A PROBLEM FOR UNDERLYING PRIORS
13. ERRONEOUS DISMISSAL OF PROBATION BY THE COURT WON'T AFFECT FINALITY OF THE CONVICTION
14. MANDATORY JAIL TIME AS CONDITION OF PROBATION-REPEAT OFFENDERS
15. IF YOU ALLEGE MORE PRIOR DWI'S THAN YOU NEED, MUST YOU PROVE THEM ALL?
    1. YES
    2. NO
16. PROOF THAT PRIOR DWI IS WITHIN 10 YEARS OF OFFENSE DATE
    1. ONLY ONE OF THE TWO PRIORS MUST BE WITHIN 10 YEARS (FOR DWI OFFENSES PRIOR TO 9-1-01)
    2. PROOF OF 10 YEARS NOT NECESSARY
    3. THE 10 YEAR RULE FOR OFFENSES FROM 9-01-01 TO 8-31-05
    4. THE 10 YEAR RULE'S DEMISE DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO LAW
17. JUDGE MAY NOT TERMINATE OR SET ASIDE DWI PROBATION EARLY
18. INTRODUCED JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PRESUMED PROPER
    1. NO WAIVER OF RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
    2. IN THE ABSENCE OF JUVENILE TRANSFER ORDER +
19. PROBATED DWI CONVICTIONS UNDER 6701L MAY BE USED TO ENHANCE NEW DWI OFFENSES
20. MISDEMEANOR PRIORS ARE VALID WHEN DEFENDANT WAIVES JURY WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY
21. DWI SENTENCE MUST INCLUDE JAIL TIME
22. ILLEGAL SENTENCE ENFORCEABLE IF DEFENDANT ASKED FOR IT OR AGREED TO IT
23. EXPUNCTION WILL NOT ALWAYS RENDER UNDERLYING FACTS OF CASE INADMISSIBLE IN PUNISHMENT PHASE
24. FELONY DWI CAN BE THE UNDERLYING FELONY IN A "FELONY MURDER" CHARGE
25. DWI W/CHILD CAN BE THE UNDERLYING FELONY IN A FELONY MURDER CHARGE
26. INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER PRIOR MAY NOT BE USED TO ENHANCE A DWI TO A FELONY

XXV. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL/DOUBLE JEOPARDY

1. JUSTICE COURT FINDINGS
2. PROBATION REVOCATION HEARINGS
3. ALR HEARINGS-NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY
   1. ALR SUSPENSIONS BASED ON BREATH TESTS
   2. ALR SUSPENSIONS BASED ON BREATH TEST REFUSALS
4. ALR HEARINGS: NO COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
5. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY BAR TO PROSECUTING DEFENDANT FOR BOTH
   1. DWI & DWLS
   2. DWI & FSRA
   3. FELONY DWI & INTOXICATION ASSAULT
   4. DWI & CHILD ENDANGERMENT
6. OCCUPATIONAL DRIVER'S LICENSE/ALR SUSPENSIONS
7. NO CONFLICT BETWEEN "DUI" AND "DWI" STATUTE
8. NO CONVICTION FOR BOTH INTOXICATION ASSAULT AND AGGRAVATED ASSAULT SBI
9. EFFECT OF LOSING ONE BT THEORY AT FIRST TRIAL ON SUBSEQUENT TRIAL
10. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BARS INTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER TRIAL ON DIFFERENT INTOXICANT

XXVI. PUTTING DEFENDANT BEHIND THE WHEEL

1. DEFENDANT STATEMENT THAT HE WAS DRIVER = SUFFICIENT
2. SUFFICIENT CORROBORATION OF "DRIVING/OPERATING"
3. INSUFFICIENT CORROBORATION OF "DRIVING"
4. EVIDENCE OF INTOXICATION AT TIME DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING
   1. INSUFFICIENT
   2. SUFFICIENT

XXVII. CONDITIONS OF PROBATION - LIMITATIONS

1. STAY OUT OF BARS-CHANGE JOB = OK
2. DENIAL OF PROBATION DUE TO LANGUAGE BARRIER-PROPER

XXVIII. NO J.N.O.V. IN CRIMINAL CASES

XXIX. COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD NOT RE-WEIGH EVIDENCE

XXX. MISDEMEANOR APPEAL BOND CONDITIONS

XXXI. INTERLOCK DEVICES

1. AS A PRE-TRIAL BOND CONDITION
2. AS A CONDITION OF PROBATION
3. AS PROOF OF PROBATION VIOLATION

XXXII. JUDGE MAY CHANGE JURY SENTENCE OF JAIL TIME TO PROBATION

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES