The trial court incorrectly denied the defendant's motion to reopen after the defendant claimed surprise over State-introduced photographic evidence which caused the defense to re-examine the defendant's place as driver or passenger in an intoxication manslaughter trial. The defendant made the motion to reopen in a timely fashion and had the evidence in hand at the time the motion was made. The trial court was clearly informed that the defendant's evidence would show an increased likelihood that the jury would accept his argument that he was not the driver. Birkholz v. State - 04-06-00251-CR thru 04-06-00253-CR.