Terry M. Holmes, David Woodall, Gabriel J. Williams, Gabriel Contreras, Jr., April Harlow, Alfonso R. Rodriguez…

Summary

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court's denial of a pre‑trial motion to cross‑examine the State's Intoxilyzer 5000 expert was not preserved for review in Woodall, so the Court of Appeals' reversal was reversed and the trial court judgment affirmed; for the seven companion DWI cases the denial was properly preserved, the error was constitutional and not harmless, and the Court of Appeals' reversal was affirmed. The Court clarified the application of Rule 103(a)(2) and the harmless‑error analysis under Rule 44.2(a). Justice MEYERS, dissenting, argued that the issues were not cognizable for appellate review and should be decided under the Gonzales test.