1 ... SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4.
2 ... Mi randa v. A r

i zona , 3 8 4U .S . 4 3 6 , 8 6 S . C t. 1 6 0 2 (1 9 6 6 ); seeTex. C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 8 .2 2 , § 2 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ).



## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 07-464- CR
T I M OT HYR AS HON W AR NE R AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 3 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppe l l antTi m ot hy Ras hon W ar nerap p ea l s f r om hi s con vi ct i on a nd ni net yni ne- yearsent ence f orcau si ng ser i ous bod i l y i nj ur y t o a ch i l d. I n t hr ee poi nt s, h e a rgu e s t h a t th e tr i a l c o u rt e rr e d b y a d m i tti n g i n to e v i d e n c e s ta te m e n ts
o b tai n e d fr o m A p p e l l a n t i n v i o l a ti o n o f Mi randa , 2b yad m i tti n g sta tem e n ts
o b t a in e d f r o m A p p e lla n t in v io la t io n o f h is r ig h t t o c o u n s e l, a n d b yd e n y in g h is3 ... Becau se A p p el l antdoes notcont estt he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence

t o suppo rt hi s convi ct i on, w e w i l l set out onl y so m uch of t he ev i d e n c e as req u i red to p u t A p p e l l a n t’ s p o i n ts i n to co n tex t.

4 ... Si er r a w asoneofA ppe l l ant ’ s f os t erch i l dr en. 2 r equ es tf ora con t i nua ncew hen a w i t nes s w asunava i l ab l e t o t es t i f y a tt he tri a l ’sp u n i s h m e n t p h a s e . W e a ffir m . Back gr ound 3 O n A u g u s t1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , A p p e lla n tt o o kt h e lif e le s sb o d yo ft h r e e - y e a r -o ld S i e r r a O d o m t o a h o s p i t a l e me r g e n c yr o o m. 4He t ol d hos pi t alpe r so nne l t hathe had j ustbeen i n a carw r eck an d t hatO dom h ad been t hr ow n f r om hercarseat and i nj ur ed. Ef f ort s t o r evi ve O dom f ai l ed. Beca us e t he chi l d a ppe ar ed t o ha ve bee n de ad l ongert han s ugge st ed by Appel l ant ’ s st ory a nd be ca us e o ft he
r el at i vel y m i nordam age t o hi s vehi cl e, hospi t al per sonnel bel i eved A ppel l anthad
conco ct ed t he car
- w r eck st or y t o hi de a cr i m e, and t hey no t i f i ed t he pol i ce. A r l i ngt on Pol i ce D et ec t i ve Ri cha r d Nut tw entt o t he hos pi t alan d i nt ervi ew ed hospi t al per sonnel . H e i nt r odu ced hi m sel fto A ppel l antan d asked A ppe l l antto a cc om pan y hi m t o t he pol i ces t at i on a nd gi ve a s t at em ent , an d A p p e l l a n t agr eed. A tt he st at i on, D et ect i ve N ut tgave A ppel l antt he Mi randa
w ar ni ngsan d i nt ervi ew ed A ppe l l ant . A tf i r st , A ppe l l antm ai nt ai ned t hatO dom had be en i nj ur ed i n t he ca rw r ec k. L at eri n t he sa m e i nt ervi ew , how ever, he adm i t t ed t hatO dom w as i nj ur ed i n A p p e l l ant ’ s hom e w hi l e A ppel l antw as3

att em pt i ng t o di sc i pl i ne her . Att he end oft he i nt ervi ew , D et ec t i ve N uttdr ove A p p e l l a n t b a c kto A p p e l l a n t’sh o u s e , w h e rea s e a rc h

— to w h i c h A p p e l l a n t’s
w i f e h ad con se nt ed— w asunde r w ay. D et ect i ve N ut tt hen t ook A ppel l ant ’ s w i f e t o t he st at i on, w her e anot her d e tec ti v e i n terv i e w e d h e r. A fter D e tec ti v e N u tt a n d A p p e l l a n t’ s w i fe h a d l e ft t h e h o u s e , Ap p e l l a n tc o n v e r s e d wi t h t h e o f f i c e r ss e a r c h i n g h i sh o me . He event ual l y t ol d t hem t hathe had shoved O dom t ow ar d a bookcase, causi ng her h e a d to h i t t h e b o o k c a se , a n d tha t he h a d sta g e d the ca r ac c i d e n t. I n the m e a n ti m e , D e tec ti v e N u tt o b tai n e d a w a rr a n t f o r A p p e l l a n t’ s a rr e st. H e d rov e A p p e l l a n t’ s w i fe b a c kto A p p e ll a n t’s h o m e an d arres ted A p p e l l a n t. D e t e c t iv e N u t tt h e n t o o kA p p e lla n tt o t h e p o lic e s t a t io n a n d r e a d h im h is Mi randar i ght s aga i n. A f ew m i nut esi nt o t he i nt ervi ew , t he f ol l ow i ng c ol l oquy occ ur r ed: D e tec ti v e N u tt: W h yd o n ’ty o u tel l u s a b o u t l a st n i g h t. A p p e ll a n t: A lrig h t. I j u s t d o n ’t w a n t to m a k e a m is ta k e . If

I ’ m gonn a m ake a m i stak e , I

— I can’ taf f or d an att or ney . Di d I unde r st and , t he cou rtap poi nt you o ne? D e tec ti v e N u tt: I f yo u w a n t an atto rne y , th a t i s y o u r r i g h t. A p p e l l a n t: T h e c o u rt a p p o i n t y o u o n e ? I s th a t rea l , o r no t? D e t e c t iv e N u t t : Y e a h , t h a t ’s re a l. D et ect i ve Lopez: Y eah, t h a t’ s o n e o f t h e ri g h ts th a t he , t hat

D et ec t i ve N utt( i nau di bl e) . That ’ s oneoft he4 r i ght ’ s t hat ’ s af f or ded t o you. And t hatw asone o f t h e ri g h ts th a t, tha t D e te c ti v e N u tt rea d to you, i fyou ca n’ taf f or d a n a tt or ney , onem ay be a p p o in t e d f o ry o u . I d o n ’t

— w it h o u tre a d in g it d ir e c t lyo f ft h e c a r d , I c a n ’tt e ll y o u e x a c t ly w or d- f or - w or d how i tr ea ds , butt hat

— t hat ’ s t he c a s e . A g a i n , t h a t ’ sn o ts o me t h i n g t h a twe hand l e. De t e c t i v e Nu t t : That ’ s your dec i si on t o m ak e, i fyo u w ant

(i n a u d i b l e ). A p p e l l a n t: I j u s t w a n t to te l l th e tru th . A ppe l l antt hen t ol d t he det ec t i vest hatheha d gr abb ed O dom by t he f ac e a nd sh ove d he ri nt o a book ca sean d t hathe had f ak ed t he ca rcr as h t o cove rup t he i n j u ri e s . A gr and j ury i ndi ct ed A ppe l l antf ori nt ent i ona l l y orkn ow i ngl y c aus i ng s e ri o u s b o d i l y i n j u ry to a m i n o r w i th a n u n k n o w n d e a d l y w e a p o n . A ju ry con vi ct ed A ppe l l antasch ar ged an d m adean af f i r m at i ve f i ndi ng t o t he dea dl yw e a p o n a l l e g a ti o n . B u t th e j u ry d e a d l o c k e d o n p u n i s h m e n t, a n d th e tri a l c o u rt gr ant ed A ppe l l ant ’ s m ot i on f ora m i st r i alon puni sh m ent . A ta se con d t r i alon pun i shm ent , anot herj ur y asses sed puni shm entatni net y- ni ne year s’ i n c a rc e ra ti o n , a n d th e tri a l c o u rt re n d e re d j u d g m e n t a c c o rd i n g l y . D i sc us si on 1. M i r and avi ol at i on I n hi s f i r stpoi nt , A ppe l l antar gue s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by a dm i tt i ng t est i m ony ab out t he st at em ent s he m a d e to t he pol i ce of f i cer s w ho sear ched5

h i s h o m e afte r hi s fi rst i n terv i e w w i th D e tec ti v e N u tt a n d b e fo re D e tec ti v e N u tt
ar r e s t e d hi m b e c a us e t ho s e s t a t e m e nt sw e r e t her e s ul to fa c us t od i al i nt er r ogati on and t hose of f i cer s di d not w ar n hi m ofhi s Mi randa r i gh t s. T he S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t A p p e lla n t w a iv e d h isc o m p la in tb yf a ilin g t o o bje c te a c h t im e
w i t nes se s t es t i f i ed abo utt he st at em ent s i n que st i on. T o p res e rve a c o m p l a i n t fo r o u r rev i e w , a p a rt ym u st h a v e p res e n ted to t h e t r ia l c o u rta t im e lyre q u e s t , o bje c t i o n , o rm o t io n t h a ts t a t e st h e s p e c if ic gr oundsf ort he des i r ed r ul i ng i ft heyar e notappar entf r om t he cont extoft he
re q u e s t, o bj e c ti o n , o r m o ti o n . T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Mo sleyv. S tate , 983 S .W .2 d 2 4 9 , 2 6 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ), c ert. deni e d , 526 U. S. 1 0 7 0 (1 9 9 9 ). A p a rt y m u s t c o n t in u e t o o bje c t e a c h t im e t h e o b j e c t io n a b le
e v i d e n c e i so ffe re d . Ethi ng to nv. S tate , 8 1 9 S . W . 2 d 8 5 4 , 8 5 8

– 5 9 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 1 ). Atri a l c o u rt’se rro n e o u sa d m i s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e w i ll n o t re q u i re
r ever sal w hen othersuch evi de n c e w a s r ecei ved w i t hou tobj ect i on, ei t her b e fo re o r a fte r th e c o m p l a i n e d -o f ru l i n g . L e da yv. S tate , 983 S. W . 2d 713, 718 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ); Johnson v. S tate , 8 0 3 S . W . 2 d 2 7 2 , 2 9 1 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 0 ), cert. denied, 5 0 1 U .S . 1 2 5 9 (1 9 9 1 ), over ruled on other

grounds by Heitm an v. Sta te , 8 1 5 S .W .2 d 6 8 1 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ). T h isru le app l i esw het hert he ot herev i den cew as i nt r oduc ed by t he def end antort he S ta te . Leday , 983 S. W . 2d a t718.6

W hen oneoft he of f i ce r s w ho s ea r che d Appel l ant ’ s hom e— Jo hn G o n z a l e s — te s ti fi e d , A p p e l l a n t m a d e t h re e o bj e c ti o n sto O ffice r G o n z a l e s ’s t esti m o n yab out A ppel l ant ’ s st at em ent s. Fi r st , w hen t he pr osecut orasked O f f i ce rG onz al esab outa st at em ent A ppe l l ant m ade t o hi s w i f e bef or e Det ec t i ve N ut tt ook hert o t he pol i ce st at i on, A ppel l ant obj ect ed, and t he courtr ul ed, as f ol l ow s: [ APP E L L ANT’ S C OUNSE L ] : Yo u rh o n o r , I w a n ta r u nni ng obj ect i on t o al l oft h i s tes ti m ony fr om t he ser geant as t o w hat [ A ppel l ant ] sai d, because i t ’ s a vi ol at i on of M i r anda and any other pr ovi si on oft he l aw . A nd t hi s l i ne oft es t i m ony i s com pl et el y ou t o f b o u n d sfo r a fa i r tri a l . TH E CO U RT: Yourobj ec t i on i s ove r r ul ed, and you m ay hav e a r unn i ng obj ect i on t o t he t est i m ony r egar di ng a conv er sat i on t hat th e D e fe n d a n t h a d w i th h i sw i fe . N ext , w hen t he pr osecut orasked O f f i cerG onzal es w hatA ppel l antsai d w hen O f f i ce rG onz al esas ke d hi m w hathad ha ppe ned , A ppe l l antm adet he f ol l ow i ng obj ec t i on: [A P P E L L A N T ’S C O U N S E L ]: Y o u r ho n o r, I ’m g o i n g to h a v e to obj ec tt o he ar sa y. He as ke d f orhe ar sa y. TH E CO U RT: O ka y. You ha ve a r unni ng obj ec t i on t o t he st at em ent s m adeby t he D ef end antatt he hom e, an d i t ’ s ove r r ul ed. Fi nal l y, w hen t he pr osecut orasked O f f i cer G onzal es w hatA ppel l antsai d w hen t he of f i ce rt ol d hi m hedi d notbe l i eveA ppe l l ant ’ s st ory, A ppe l l antobj ec t ed,

[ A PP ELLA N T’ S C O U N S EL] : Y ourhono r , I ’ m goi ng t o obj ect t o w h a th e s a id a tt h ist im e . H e h a sn o tb e e n w a r n e d b yt h is of f i cerofhi s M i r anda r i ghts .7 T H E C O U R T : O k a y . A n d y o u h a v e a ru n n in g o bje c t io n t o a ll o f th e s ta te m e n t s m a d e b yth e D e fe n d a n t i n th e h o m e , a n d i t’s ove r r ul ed. Butw hen an ot herde t ec t i ve— D ani elRhode s— t es t i f i ed ext ensi vel y a bout A ppe l l ant ’ s i n- hom e s t at em ent s, A ppe l l antm adeno o bj ec t i on. A r unn i ng ob j ect i on r equest ed by defense coun sel , i fgr ant ed by t he t r i al
cou rt , m ay be su f f i ci entt o pr es erve er r orw hen anot herw i t nes s t es t i f i est o t he
sa m e m att eri ft he obj ec t i on w ast i m el y, s t at ed t he sp ec i f i c g r ounds , an d
re q u e s te d th e ru l i n g l a te r d e n i e d . Ethi ng to n, 8 1 9 S .W .2 d a t 8 5 8

– 5 9 ; Scaggs
v. S tate , 1 8 S .W .3 d 2 7 7 , 2 9 2 (T e x . A p p .— A u s ti n 2 0 0 0 , p e t. re f’d ); see Sa tti e white v. S tate , 786 S. W . 2d 271, 283 n. 4 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 1989 ) (o b s e rv i n g th a t th e re a re s i tu a ti o n si n w h i c h a ru n n i n g o bj e c ti o n m a yb e m o re a p p ro p ri a te th a n a re d u n d a n t a n d d i s ru p ti v e s e ri e so f o bj e c ti o n s ) cert. denied, 498 U . S. 881 ( 199 0) . I n F o rd v. S tate , the cou rtofcr i m i nal appeal s hel d t hat
a r unni ng obj ec t i on e xt end ed t o ot herw i t nes se s w hen t he def end antas ke d f or a ru n ni ng ob j ect i on t o “ext end t o al l w i t nesses, ” i ft hey t est i f i ed t o t he sam e ty p e o f m a tte r. 9 1 9 S .W .2 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); see al so Ca mp o s v. S tate , 256 S. W . 3d 757, 760 ( Te x. App.

— Hous t on [ 1s tDi s t . ] 2008 , p e t. re f’d ). I n t he case bef or e us, unl i ke F o rd, A pp el l antdi d notas k f orhi s r unni ng o bj e c t io n t o O ffice r G o n z a l e s ’ste s ti m o n yto a p p l yto a l l w i tn e s s e s . S ee S caggs , 18 S. W . 3d a t 292–9 3. And Appe l l a nt f a i l e d t o obj e c t w hen D ani el8

R h o d e s te sti fi e d ab o u t A p p e l l a n t’ s sta tem e n ts i n th e h o m e . T h u s, h e fai l e d to p re s e rv e h i sc o m p l a i n t a sto th a t te s ti m o n y . Leday , 9 8 3 S .W .2 d a t 7 1 8 . W e o v e rr u l e A p p e l l a n t’ s fi rst po i n t. 2. D eni alofM ot i on f orC onti nuan ce I n hi s se con d poi nt , A ppe l l antar gue s t hatt he t r i alcourter r ed by de nyi ng hi s m ot i on f orco nt i nua nceatt he se con d pun i sh m en tt r i alw hen a
w i t ne ss— A ppe l l ant ’ s w i f e— w asuna vai l abl e t o t es t i f y, t her ebyvi ol at i ng A ppel l ant ’ s C onfr ontat i on C l ause r i ghts . Dur i ng t hef i r s tt r i a l ’ sg ui l t / i nn oc e nc e p ha s e , App e l l a nt ’ sw i f e t e s t i f i ed t hatshe w as asl eep on t he ni ght ofO d o m ’s d eat h w hen A ppel l antcal l ed her t o a bed r oom . W hen sh e w ent t o t he bed r oom , sh e cou l d se e t hats om et hi ng
w a s w ron g w i th O d o m , w h o s o o n fe l l u n c o n sc i o u s a n d d i e d . A p p e l l a n t’ s w i fe dr essed t he cor pse an d hel ped A ppel l antst r ap i ti nt o a carseati n t hei rvehi cl e. A tt he t i m e oft he second pu ni shm entt r i al , A ppel l ant ’ s w i f e w as app ar ent l y r ec upe r ati ng f r om a guns hotw ound i n aLo ui si ana hos pi t al . The St at e r ea d he rt es t i m ony f r om t he pr i ort r i alt o t he j ury. The n extda y, A p p e lla n to r a llym o v e d f o ra c o n t in u a n c e t o s e c u r e h e ra tt e n d a n c e a tt r ia l. A p p e lla n t ’s c o u n s e l re p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r ia l c o u rtt h a tA p p e lla n t ’s w if e w o u ld te s ti fyth a t a n o th e rc h il d i n A p p e l l a n t’sh o m e i n j u re d O d o m . T h e tri a l c o u rt
re q u e s t e d a d d it io n a l in f o r m a t io n a b o u tA p p e lla n t ’s w ife ’sc o n d i ti o n . A p p e l l a n t’s
c o u n s e l c a lle d t h e L o u is ia n a h o s p it a l a n d le a r n e d t h a tA p p e lla n t ’s w if e w a sin9

i nt ens i ve ca r e a nd on a ven t i l at or . The t r i alcourtde ni ed A ppe l l ant ’ s r equ es tf or conti nuan ce. A m o t io n f o rc o n t in u a n c e m u s tb e w r it t e n o rs w o r n ; o t h e r w is e , it pr e s e rve sn ot hi ng f orr e vi e w . Te x. Cod e Cr i m . Pr oc . Ann . a rt s . 29. 03, 29. 08 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ); D e wb erryv. S tate , 4 S. W . 3d 735, 755 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 9 ), cert. denied, 52 9 U . S . 11 31 ( 20 00 ) . Becau se A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on w as noti n w r i t i ng, hepr es erved not hi ng f orourr evi ew , and w e ove r r ul e h i s se con d p o i n t. 3. V i ol at i on of R i ght t o C oun sel I n hi s t hi r d poi nt , A ppe l l ant ar gue s t hat t he t r i alco urter r ed by a dm i tt i ng i nt o evi dence A ppel l ant ’ s second vi deotaped st at em entto D et ect i ve N ut taft er t h e p o in ti n t h e in t e rv ie w w h e n A p p e lla n tp u r p o rt e d lyre q u e s t e d c o u n s e l. A p p e l l a n t d o e sn o t i d e n ti fyw h e rei n th e re c o rd h e o bj e c te d to D e te c ti v e N u tt’s t es t i m ony ort he ad m i ssi on oft he i nt ervi ew r ec or di ngson t hi s bas i s, an d our
o w n rev i e w o f th e rec o rd r e v e a l s no su c h o bj e c ti o n . F u rt h e r, w h e n the S tate of f er ed t he i nt ervi ew vi deo r ec or di ngs , A ppe l l ants t at ed t hatheha d no
o bj e c ti o n to th e m . A de f end antw ai veser r ori fheaf f i r m at i vel y a ss ert s t hathe hasno o bj e c ti o n w h e n e v i d e n c e i so ffe re d , e v e n i f h e m a d e a n o t h e rw i s e e rro rp re s e rv i n g o bj e c ti o n b e fo re tri a l o r o u ts i d e t h e p re s e n c e o f th e j u ry . S ee Jones
v. S tate , 9 6 2 S .W .2 d 1 5 8 , 1 6 7 (T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rth 1 9 9 8 , n o p e t.);10

T u ffi a shv. S tate , 9 4 8 S .W .2 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 6 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 1 9 9 7 , p e t. ref’d). B e c a u se A p p e l l a n t did n o t ob j e c t t o the a d m is s i o n o f his sta tem e n ts
m adeaft er h i s pur port ed dem and f orco uns elan d a f f i r m at i vel y s t at ed t hathe had no o bj ec t i on t o t hei rad m i ss i on, w e h ol d t hathew ai ved hi s com pl ai nt , an d
w e o v e rr u l e h i s th i rd p o i n t. C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l o f A p p e l l a n t’s p o in ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.
A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: L I V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: J ul y 30, 2009