Memorandum Opinion by Justice Boatman, 14-24-00614-CR, January 29, 2026.
On appeal from the 228th District Court of Harris County.
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed an intoxication manslaughter conviction, holding that a defendant’s failure to brake and his deviation into the highway shoulder established a legally sufficient causal link to the victim’s death. The court specifically clarified that the victim’s own extreme intoxication (.233 BAC) and potential presence in a lane of traffic did not negate the defendant’s criminal liability where the evidence showed the defendant’s impairment led to the fatal maneuver.
Relevance to Family Law
While a criminal appeal, Lewis provides a strategic roadmap for Family Law litigators handling high-conflict custody disputes involving substance abuse and endangerment. Specifically, it offers a “counter-strategy” to the common defense where an impaired parent attempts to deflect blame for a safety incident by pointing to the other parent’s “unclean hands” or concurrent negligence. In the context of Texas Family Code § 153.004 and the best interest of the child, Lewis reinforces the principle that one party’s misconduct (or intoxication) does not legally excuse the other party’s impaired judgment that creates a dangerous environment. This is a critical tool for counsel seeking to sustain a finding of endangerment or to secure supervised possession despite “comparative” bad behavior by the moving party.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Early one morning on the Katy Freeway, a woman pulled her vehicle onto the shoulder to check on a passenger. As she returned to the driver’s side door with her hazard lights activated, Stanley Lewis II struck her and her vehicle. The victim died at the scene. Lewis exhibited classic signs of impairment: glassy eyes, slurred speech, and the odor of alcohol. He admitted to consuming two margaritas, an open container of which was found in his vehicle. A horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test performed an hour later revealed six out of six clues of intoxication. Subsequent blood draws confirmed a BAC of .101 at the one-hour mark and .071 at the four-hour mark.
Crucially, the defense emphasized that the victim was significantly more intoxicated than the defendant, with a BAC of .233. Lewis argued that the victim may have stepped into the lane of traffic and that his intoxication was not the “but-for” cause of the death, essentially presenting a comparative negligence defense in a criminal forum.
Issues Decided
- Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove the defendant was “intoxicated” under the Penal Code definition.
- Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to establish a causal link between the defendant’s intoxication and the victim’s death, particularly in light of the victim’s own intoxication.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting blood test results over a chain-of-custody objection.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Penal Code § 49.08 (Intoxication Manslaughter), which requires the State to prove the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated and, by reason of that intoxication, caused the death of another. “Intoxicated” is defined under § 49.01(2) as having a BAC of .08 or more or lacking the normal use of mental/physical faculties. Under the legal sufficiency standard of Baltimore v. State, the court views evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. For the evidentiary issue, Texas Rule of Evidence 901 requires only “some evidence” to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it to be.
Application
The court systematically dismantled the defendant’s sufficiency challenges. Regarding intoxication, the court combined “physical signs” testimony (slurred speech, glassy eyes) with the scientific evidence (HGN clues and the .101 BAC result) to find a rational juror could find impairment.
The core of the opinion, however, addressed causation. The court noted that Detective Baker’s investigation showed Lewis was traveling at 76 mph, increased his speed before impact, and failed to apply his brakes. More importantly, Lewis failed to maintain a single lane, driving onto the shoulder where the victim’s hazard lights were visible. The court reasoned that even if the victim was highly intoxicated, the defendant’s own failure to stay in his lane—a direct byproduct of his intoxication—was a sufficient “but-for” cause of the accident. The jury was entitled to resolve the conflict regarding whether the victim was in the lane or on the shoulder.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction. The court found that signs of physical impairment observed by officers, coupled with a BAC result above the legal limit, established intoxication as a matter of law for the purpose of appellate review.
The court further held that the causal link was established by the defendant’s erratic driving and failure to brake, regardless of the victim’s own level of impairment. The court emphasized that the jury serves as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence, including the resolution of conflicting testimony regarding the victim’s position on the road.
Finally, the court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the blood results. Rule 901 does not require “conclusive proof” of a chain of custody, only “some evidence” of authenticity, which the State provided through testimony from the hospital staff and investigating officers.
Practical Application
For family practitioners, this case is a masterclass in establishing “nexus.” When a parent is caught driving with a child while impaired, or suffers an accident during a period of possession, they often argue that the accident was “unavoidable” or caused by the “other driver” or “poor road conditions.” Lewis allows a litigator to argue that if the impaired parent’s conduct (such as failing to brake or drifting lanes) contributed to the danger, the other parent’s alleged negligence is legally irrelevant to the safety finding. It moves the needle from “accidents happen” to “impairment caused the inability to avoid the accident.”
Checklists
Defeating the “Comparative Fault” Defense in Custody Cases
- Identify the Impairment-Driven Maneuver:
- Did the parent fail to brake?
- Did they fail to maintain a single lane?
- Was there an increase in speed prior to a collision?
- Neutralize the Other Party’s Conduct:
- Establish that the child (or other parent) was in a “safe zone” (e.g., the shoulder/proper car seat) prior to the actor’s deviation.
- Argue that the actor’s impairment removed the “last clear chance” to avoid the incident.
- Evidentiary Foundation for Medical/Blood Records:
- Use Rule 901 to lower the bar for the admission of hospital-draw blood results.
- Focus on the “physical signs” (slurred speech, odor) to supplement scientific data.
Citation
Lewis v. State, No. 14-24-00614-CR, 2026 WL [N/A] (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 29, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling is a powerful weapon in Texas divorce and custody litigation involving “unclean hands” arguments. In high-conflict cases where both parents may have substance abuse issues, the parent who “caused” a specific endangering event often tries to mitigate their culpability by pointing to the other parent’s intoxication or negligence. Lewis clarifies that under Texas law, the victim’s (or the other party’s) intoxication does not absolve an actor of the consequences of their own impaired choices.
In a modification suit or a hearing for temporary orders, you can cite the logic of Lewis to argue that a parent’s .233 BAC (the victim’s level) is a distraction if your client can prove the other parent (the defendant’s level) failed to maintain control of their faculties and the environment. It effectively shuts down the “they were drunk too” defense by focusing the court’s attention on the specific mechanics of the endangerment.
~~d86175bd-4bf7-4e3d-b09c-4a54ae264413~~
Share this content: