A Texas court has upheld the conviction of Juan David Almanza for intoxication manslaughter after he drove the wrong way on an interstate, resulting in a fatal crash. The Texas Court of Appeals issued its opinion on June 16, 2026, affirming the lower court's decision and addressing the admissibility of toxicology evidence in the case. This ruling affects not only Almanza, who received an 11-year prison sentence, but also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future.
The case stems from a tragic incident on St. Patrick's Day in 2019. Almanza, after celebrating at bars with his cousin, drove his truck against traffic on Interstate 45 in Houston. This reckless decision led to a head-on collision that killed one passenger in another vehicle and seriously injured another. Following the accident, law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Almanza's blood, which was tested for alcohol content.
Almanza was charged with both intoxication manslaughter and intoxication assault. A jury found him guilty of both charges, leading to a sentence of 11 years for intoxication manslaughter and 2 years for intoxication assault, to be served concurrently. The case then moved to the Texas Court of Appeals after Almanza raised concerns about the reliability of the blood test results.
In his appeal, Almanza argued that the trial court erred by admitting the toxicology evidence. He claimed that the blood test results were unreliable due to a recall affecting the test tube used to draw his blood. The State of Texas countered that Almanza had not preserved this issue for appeal because he did not object to the evidence during the trial and did not receive a ruling on his pretrial motion to suppress the evidence.
The court ruled that even if the motion to suppress was impliedly denied, the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. The opinion stated, "Even assuming the motion to suppress was denied and that the issue was preserved for our review, the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence at trial." The ruling was made by Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil.
During the trial, the court heard testimony from various experts regarding the blood sample collection and testing process. The manufacturer of the blood collection tubes testified that only a small number of vials were affected by the recall, and evidence showed that the tubes used for Almanza's blood sample contained the necessary additives to ensure accurate results. The court concluded that the presence of anticoagulant in the tubes indicated that the blood sample was reliable.
The ruling has significant implications for future cases involving intoxication manslaughter and similar charges. It clarifies that questions about the reliability of blood samples, particularly in light of recalls, may go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. This decision may influence how courts handle evidence in intoxication cases moving forward.
As for what comes next, it is unclear if Almanza will seek further appeals. The court's ruling effectively upholds the lower court's decision, but details about any potential next steps were not available in the court filing. This case serves as a reminder of the serious legal consequences that can arise from impaired driving and the importance of reliable evidence in criminal trials.