I just finished a felony DWI trial in which the biggest issue was how to word the charge in light of the Robles opinion and what if any reference the State could make to prior DWI convictions during voir dire and argument. Richard Alpert and John Bradley provided us some guidance. I'm curious to see how other jurisdictions are handling this issue.

So what was your outcome?

And you might want to check out the previous thread on this same issue of Tamez and the $!$*?? progeny.

And then, read 52 SW3d 242. It's the best explanation of this mess I have seen by a court of appeals.

I'm sorry to say it was a hung jury.

I tried a case a few months ago and we came to a middle ground of sorts... we were able to voir dire on what made a DWI a felony, then we read the indictment including the two priors that the Defendant stipulated to, then we read the very bare-bones stipulation into the record in front of the jury. The charge was submitted just like any other felony DWI in our history... the normal application paragraph for the offense on trial, followed by "And if you further find beyond a reasonable doubt" that the priors were the same guy, then you shall find the defendant guilty.
It is my opinion that the ruling in Robles fully intended to prevent the State from presenting EVIDENCE of prior convictions (i.e. judgments and sentences, etc.) not STIPULATIONS. If you read the language in the opinion, it seems pretty clear that the duplicity and unnecessary information in the judgments was the problem. That doesn't solve the problem of Hollen v. State from Fort Worth (what's in the water there?), but I'm pretty confident that Hollen isn't good law, and it's not binding on me, anyway.
Also, my opinion is that, if you don't include the priors in the application paragraphs in the charge, you get only a conviction for a misdemeanor, and that's not the point. Perhaps the Court of Criminal Appeals will clear this up, but for now, this is my game plan.

What Melanie says is my interpretation as well. Sorry about the hung jury. So what did the judge let the jury know about the priors during the trial?

Richard

The stipulation was not published to the jury. However, the judge instructed them in the charge to find the stipulation to be true. He did let the jury hear the full indictment read. The charge also included the cause numbers, etc. as alleged in the indictment, included in the application paragraph.