Reversed and Remanded and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed August 1, 2006.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
_______________
NO. 14-03-00585-CR
_______________
JOHN DAVIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 6
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1117461
C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N
For reasons unrelated to our substantive disposition, I cannot join the majority. However, I readily agree that reversal is warranted under this appellate record. Respected advocates have consistently demonstrated to bench and bar that there are many variables affecting the reliability of Intoxilyzer tests. Despite appellant=s numerous objections during voir dire and closing argument, the State=s advocate blatantly misstated the law.
Our legislature has chosen to use a machine (Intoxilyzer) to establish criminal culpability beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the judiciary must carefully guard a
defendant=s right to challenge the reliability of such evidence.
/s/ Charles Seymore
Justice
Judgment rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed August 1, 2006.
Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Seymore, and Guzman. (Edelman, J., majority)
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).