Reynolds v. State

Jerry Reynolds (defendant) was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). Department of Public Safety (DPS) Trooper Parker tested Reynold’s breath with a machine called the Intoxilyzer 5000 and determined that Reynold’s blood-alcohol level was twice the legal limit. Reynolds filed pretrial motions to prevent the prosecution (plaintiff) from introducing evidence of the breath-test results. Although Parker was certified by the DPS to operate an Intoxilyzer 5000 to conduct breath testing, Reynolds established that Parker had little or no knowledge of the scientific principles underlying breath testing. Another prosecution witness was a certified technical supervisor for the Intoxilyzer 5000 who could explain the science and technology of the Intoxilyzer 5000 and would attest that Parker’s Intoxilyzer 5000 had been in good working order on the date Parker tested Reynolds. The trial court ruled that Parker’s testimony and the breath-test results would be admissible at trial. As a result of that ruling, Reynolds pleaded guilty. Reynolds appealed, arguing that the breath-test results should have been inadmissible because Parker did not have a working knowledge of the scientific theory underlying breath testing. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court, and Reynolds appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.