Gelinas v. Texas (Original)
Annotate this Case
Appellant James Gelinas was charged with driving while intoxicated following a roadside stop conducted by Department of Public Safety Trooper Diego Marquez. At trial, Marquez testified that he stopped appellant because he believed appellant failed to signal out of a private parking lot and that the light illuminating the license plate on appellant's car was not white, as required by law. Marquez conceded that the initial ground for the stop proved insupportable because the Transportation Code does not require drivers to signal when turning out of private lots. As a result, the sole ground for the stop became appellant's license plate light. Once stopped, Marquez contended that appellant exhibited a number of signs of and performed poorly on the standardized field sobriety tests. Based on his observations, Trooper Marquez concluded that appellant was intoxicated. The jury instructions given at trial were clearly erroneous in that they stated the exact opposite of what the law provided. "In truth, if the jury found that Gelinas was driving on a public road and failed to comply with the law requiring a white light, the stop would have been legal, not illegal, and thus the jury could have properly considered the testimony and conclusions of Trooper Marquez." Appellant was found guilty of driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to 180 days confinement probated for fifteen months and fined $1000. On appeal, appellant asserted, among other things, that he suffered egregious harm as a result of the charge error. In its analysis, the court of appeals noted the similarities between the facts of the instant case and those in the Supreme Court's "Hutch v. State" plurality opinion. The court of appeals opted to follow the Court's reasoning in Hutch, "offering little more than an account of [the Court's] analysis in Hutch and a blanket conclusion of egregious harm." That court reversed and remanded the case accordingly. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Hutch lacked the persuasive value to which the court of appeals attributed it and reversed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.