TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-12-00804-CR
Cornelio Garcia-Mata, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. CR2012-205, HONORABLE CHARLES R. RAMSAY, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Cornelio Garcia-Mata guilty of driving while intoxicated, and further
found that he had at least two prior DWI convictions and that he used a deadly weapon in
committing the offense. The jury assessed sentence at life in prison. Appellant contends that the
trial court erred by excluding two videotapes, one showing that, contrary to the arresting officers’
testimony, appellant hit his head getting into the police car, and the other showing that appellant
had difficulty with the English language. Appellant contends that the exclusion of this evidence
prevented him from impeaching the officers on their lack of memory that he hit his head. He also
asserts that the exclusion of evidence prevented him from supporting his contention that he did not
understand the officers, which would have rebutted or explained the officers’ testimony that he failed
to comply with their instructions on the field sobriety tests. He contends that these limitations
impinged on his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. See U.S. Const. amend. VI. We will
affirm the judgment of conviction.
The State contends that appellant did not present these particular arguments to the
trial court when offering the evidence and thereby waived them. The State also contends that the
evidence is improper impeachment on a collateral matter. Finally, the State argues that any error in
the admission of the evidence is harmless.
Exclusion of evidence presents reversible error only when it is harmful—even when
the exclusion may touch on constitutional rights. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2; see also Walters v. State,
247 S.W.3d 204, 219 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (non-constitutional error); Ray v. State, 178 S.W.3d
833, 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (constitutional error). We must reverse for errors of constitutional
dimension unless we determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the
conviction or punishment. Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(a).
Even assuming solely for the sake of discussion that appellant preserved the error,
that the trial court erred by excluding the evidence, and that the exclusion affected his constitutional
rights, we find no harmful error under any applicable standard. Eyewitnesses testified about
appellant’s erratic and dangerous driving. He drove inconsistent speeds, often much slower than
the ambient speed, and drifted across lanes of traffic on Interstate 35. Witnesses testified that many
drivers had to swerve to avoid hitting or being sideswiped by his slower-moving vehicle. They
feared that a large pileup was imminent. A police officer testified about his personal observation of
appellant drifting across and back on the access road. The officer testified regarding the strong odor
of alcohol emitted from the vehicle, appellant’s bloodshot and glassy eyes, appellant’s difficulty in
turning off the vehicle and producing a driver’s license, appellant’s unsteadiness in standing outside
the truck, appellant’s apparent urination on himself before and during the stop, and a fellow officer’s
discovery of two open, cool-to-the-touch, nearly empty 24-ounce cans of beer inside the truck.
2
Through an interpreter, appellant testified regarding his difficulties understanding the officers, his
unfamiliarity with the manual transmission in the vehicle he was driving, and a medical condition
that might have caused uncontrollable urination. He also admitted he was driving on the public
roads and that he thought he might have been intoxicated because he was “quite drunk” the day
before, might still have had some alcohol in his system when he got up, had not eaten, and had
consumed two more beers. His blood-alcohol concentration as tested at the hospital after his arrest
registered .446 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood—more than 5.5 times greater than the
legal limit. See Tex. Penal Code § 49.01. Even if the excluded video evidence showed that he had
trouble with English and that, contrary to police testimony, appellant hit his head on the roof of the
police car, it would not have added evidence of any counterweight on the elements of the offense.
We conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that any error in excluding the evidence did
not contribute to appellant’s conviction or punishment. Any error in excluding evidence did not
otherwise affect his substantial rights. We affirm the judgment.
Jeff Rose, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Rose, and Goodwin
Affirmed
Filed: August 6, 2014
Do Not Publish
3