From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Van Natta

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Jul 3, 1991
811 S.W.2d 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

Opinion

No. 532-91.

July 3, 1991.

Appeal from County Criminal Court At Law No. 7, Tarrant County; Howard M. Fender, Judge.

Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., and C. Chris Marshall and David K. Chapman, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, for appellant.

Michael Berger, Fort Worth, for appellee.

Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before the court en banc.


OPINION


Appellee was arrested and charged with the offense of driving while intoxicated. After a pretrial hearing, the trial court granted appellee's motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Van Natta, 805 S.W.2d 40 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth, 1991).

The State raises five grounds for review. As is true in every case where discretionary review is refused, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983). With this understanding, we refuse the State's petition for discretionary review.

McCORMICK, P.J., and BAIRD, J., would grant.


Summaries of

State v. Van Natta

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Jul 3, 1991
811 S.W.2d 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
Case details for

State v. Van Natta

Case Details

Full title:The STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. John Patrick VAN NATTA, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc

Date published: Jul 3, 1991

Citations

811 S.W.2d 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

State v. Skiles

Here, the State offered no data to the trial court about the necessity and effectiveness of the traffic…

State v. Hubacek

The administrative scheme is not a prerequisite to the application of the Brown balancing test, rather it is…