DocketNumber: No. PD-0497-13
Citation Numbers: 411 S.W.3d 918
Judges: Womack
Filed Date: 10/23/2013
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/2/2021
delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.
A jury found the appellant guilty of capital murder. Because the State did not
I
The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is satisfied only when a defendant’s statements are given voluntarily.
In Missouri v. Seibert,
This court has adopted Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Seibert as the “position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.”
Under article 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, “[i]n all cases where a question is raised as to the volun-tariness of a statement of an accused, the [trial] court ... must enter an order stating its conclusion as to whether or not the statement was voluntarily made, along with the specific finding of fact upon which the conclusion was based, which order shall be filed among the papers of this cause.”
In this case, no findings of fact were filed. This was error. The Court of Appeals further erred by not abating for such findings.
Here, neither party requested written findings at any level of the proceedings, and the issue was not considered by the lower court. Nonetheless, section 6 of article 38.22 clearly requires that the trial court make such findings.
We vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that Court with instructions that it be abated to the trial court for findings consistent with Carter. Specifically, the trial court should determine (1) whether the original, unrecorded interview was custodial in nature, (2) whether the appellant was Mirandized prior to his original interrogation, (3) if not, whether the police deliberately employed a two-step interrogation process, and (4) if they did, were any curative measures taken before the second confession. After these findings are filed, the case shall be returned to the Court of Appeals.
. Vasquez v. State, 397 S.W.3d 850 (Tex.App-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013).
. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
. Id., at 462, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (quoting Ziang Sung Wan v. United States, 266 U.S. 1, 45 S.Ct. 1, 69 L.Ed. 131 (1924)).
. Id., at 467, 86 S.Ct. 1602.
. 542 U.S. 600, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004).
. Id., at 613, 124 S.Ct. 2601.
. See id., at 608, 617, 124 S.Ct. 2601.
. Carter v. State, 309 S.W.3d 31, 38 (Tex.Cr. App.2010). See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977); see also Haynes v. State, 273 S.W.3d 183, 186-87 (Tex.Cr.App.2008).
. Carter, 309 S.W.3d, at 37.
. Ibid. Opinions of members of the Supreme Court have suggested that curative measures may include: "(1) a substantial break in time and circumstances between the unwarned statement and the Miranda warning; (2) explaining to the defendant that the unwarned statements, taken while in custody, are likely inadmissible; (3) informing the suspect that, although he previously gave incriminating information, he is not obligated to repeat it; (4) the interrogating officers refrain from referencing to the unwarned statement unless the defendant refers to it first; or (5) if the defendant does refer to the pre-Miranda statement, the interrogating officer states that the defendant is not obligated to discuss the content of
. (Emphasis added). The burden of proof at such a hearing is on the State, which must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was voluntary. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 169, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Alvarado v. State, 912 S.W.2d 199, 211 (Tex.Cr.App.1995).
. Oursboum v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159, 169 (Tex.Cr.App.2008).
. Wicker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Cr.App.1987) ("... [T]he duty of the appellate court is clear. The proper procedure is that the appeal will be abated and the trial judge will be directed to reduce to writing his findings on the disputed issues surrounding the taking of the appellant’s confession. The trial judge may review the transcription of the testimony upon which his original ruling was made, if necessary, in order to refresh his recollection of the reasons behind such ruling.”).
.See id., at 783 ("... Article 38.22, § 6, supra, is mandatory in its language and that it requires a trial court to file its findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the volun-tariness of a confession whether or not the defendant objects to the absence of such omitted filing.”)
Edward Caballero v. State ( 2017 )
Michael Allen Trevino v. State ( 2021 )
Stephanie Fernandez AKA Stephanie Barfield v. State ( 2021 )
Maria Dolores Garcia v. State ( 2021 )
Michael Allen Trevino v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )
Hassan Abdullah v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )
the State of Texas v. Eric Scarberry ( 2022 )
David Scott Rose v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )
Oscar Davila Rodriguez v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )
Johnny Anthony Palomo v. State ( 2018 )
Harold Brown v. State ( 2014 )
Brian Everett Day v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )
the State of Texas v. Eric Scarberry ( 2022 )
Oscar Davila Rodriguez v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )
Meagan Rena Work v. State ( 2020 )
Meagan Rena Work v. State ( 2020 )
Robert Dean Yancy Jr. v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )
Caleb Patrick Daniels v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )
Robert Len White v. State ( 2017 )