Daniel Gig Erdman, Appellant v. the State of Texas, Appellee

Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to suppress the intoxilyzer test results because the appellant's consent was induced by the officer's misstatement of statutory consequences; the State must prove voluntariness by clear and convincing evidence, and the appropriate standard of appellate review is abuse of discretion. The decision was joined by a concurrence and opposed by two dissents.