Can Circumstantial Evidence Prove DWI?

Julian Kuciemba v. The State of Texas, is an important DWI appellate case to take note of. In this case, Kuciemba was found behind the steering wheel, injured and intoxicated, at the scene of a one-car rollover accident with a blood-alcohol level of more than twice the legal limit.

The First District Court of Appeals in Houston found the evidence insufficient to show that Kuciemba was intoxicated at the time of the accident. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas disagreed and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals.

Background of the Case

The Incident

After being informed of a rollover crash involving a single vehicle, Sheriff Deputy Jonathan Prior arrive on the scene and saw a pickup truck in a ditch. Kuciemba was in the driver’s seat and had a few cuts on his forehead with blood dripping down his face.

Deputy Prior detected a powerful smell of alcohol on Kuciemba’s breath and noticed he was having difficulty standing. His speech was slurred. When asked about the cause of the accident, Kuciemba said he had dozed off.

Three minutes later, EMS arrived and Kuciemba was carried away in an ambulance. The medical staff took his blood sample before they left, and the results showed a blood alcohol concentration of .214.

The Defendant’s Appeal

The court of appeals found the evidence legally insufficient to show that Kuciemba was intoxicated at the time he was driving. The court observed that the State of Texas presented neither witnesses to “testify regarding appellant’s driving before the accident occurred” nor evidence to “establish how soon after the accident Deputy Prior arrived at the scene.”

It held that there was neither direct nor circumstantial evidence to establish the necessary temporal link. The court held that the evidence supported “a finding that appellant was intoxicated at the accident scene” but was “insufficient to show that appellant was intoxicated while driving.”

Analysis by the CCA

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals determined that a guilty verdict for driving while intoxicated could be supported by just circumstantial evidence.

A motorist that’s demonstrating intoxication at the scene of an auto accident implies that the individual’s intoxication caused the crash, and the implication of causation is even more powerful when the accident only involves one vehicle and an inanimate item.

The court concluded that the evidence, including Kuciemba’s location in the driver’s seat and the fact that he was still bleeding, suggested that the crash had taken place not long before.

Additionally, Kuciemba’s high blood alcohol concentration (BAC) detected at the accident site corroborated the idea that he had either been in the accident or was drunk for a long time. As a result, the court overturned the ruling of the appeals court and sent the case back to the same court to look into Kuciemba’s remaining question.

Facing DWI Charges in Houston?

Contact Attorney Tad Nelson for Immediate Help.

This case highlights the way circumstantial evidence can impact DWI cases which can support a DWI conviction. If you’re in trouble with the law and need to talk with a criminal defense attorney that has extensive experience fighting DWI charges, contact Attorney Tad Nelson at your earliest convenience.

Attorney Tad Nelson has fought on behalf of the accused since 1995. If you’re serious about fight back against criminal charges levied against, schedule your free consultation with our legal team today. You can reach our law office by calling 281-280-0100 or send us a message.

Attorney Tad Nelson