T EX . P E N A L C O D E § 19
. 0 3 (a)( 2 ). 1
T h e F irst C o u rt o f A p p e a ls initially re c e ive d a p p e llan t’s ap p e a l, b u t t ra n sfe rr e d the c a se to the T h irte e n th 2 C o u rt o f A p p e a ls. 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 1917- 06

R A U L A D A M M A R TINE Z , JR. , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE THI RTEENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

HA RRI S CO UNTY J O H N S ON , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t , i n w hi c h P RI CE , W OMACK , H OL C OM B , and C OCHR AN , J J ., jo in e d . P RI CE , J. , f i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on. H ERVEY , J ., f

i l ed a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P .J ., and M E YE RS and K EASLE R , JJ . , j oi ne d. O P I N I O N Raul A. Martinez, J r., appea ls his conviction for c apital murder
. Be cause the state c hose not 1 to seek the de at h p en alt y , the jury ’s findingof guilt resulted in a sentenc e of life in prison. The Thirteenth Court o f Ap peals uphe ld his conviction. Ma rti ne z v . S tate , 2 0 4 S. W. 3 d

9 1 4 ( T e x. 22

App.—Corpus Christi 2006)
. T h is Court gra nted appe llant’s petition for discre tionary revie w: “Whether the court of a

ppeals misapplied the standa rds of Se ibe rt in de termining that a prope r and fu nc tio na l Miranda war

ning was g iven appellant here and finding appellant’ s custodial s t at ement admissible.” We reve rse. FACTS In th e ea rl y m orningof August 2, 2003, Alfredo B alder as L oredo, Gustavo Camilo, and Manuel Ar

riag a Molina we re socializing in the rea r of an apar

tment c omplex in H ouston when two men appr oache d them with a rifle a nd a pistol. Two of t he victim s described the man c arr ying the rifle a s a short, hea

vy , Hispanic male and the man c arr ying a pistol as a tall, skinny , Hispanic male
. M r . B a l d e r a s t e s t i f

i e d th at th e s h o rt e r m anp r e s s e d th e r i f l e i n t o h i s a

b d o m e nan d

d e m an d e d

m o n e y. Simul taneously , the taller ma n pointed the pistol at the other two victims and dema nded money . Mr. Arria g a g ave his wa llet to the taller man, who re sponded by shooting Mr. Arriag a in the groin. Mr. Camilo also ga

ve his wallet to the taller

man, who re sponded by

shooti n gCamilo in t he stomach. Th e me n p us he d M r. B a lde ra s to the g ro un d, too k h is w a lle t, s ho t hi m in th e ne c k, and

fl e d. Stil l aler t, Mr. Ba ldera s used hi s cell phone to c all his brother-in- law, and his brothe r-in-la w ca lled the police. The three victims were ta ken to the hospital. Mr. Balder as wa s treate d for his injuries and
re le a se d th at ni g ht. Mr . Ca mil o w a s h os pit a lize d f

or a lon g e r pe ri od of

tim e and un de rw e nt m

ult ipl e
surg e ri e s. Mr . Arria g a

die d a fe w h ours a ft e r t

he inc ide nt. Detec tives Maca

rio Sosa and Toby

Her nandez of the H ouston Pol ice Department’s homicide div isi on inv e sti g ate d th e c a se . T he re we re no su sp e c ts unt il the of fi c e rs we re inf

or me d o f a Cr ime Stoppers tip identifying appellant and James Ruiz as the primar y suspects. Appe llant matched the d e s c r i p t i o no f

th e s h o rt , h e av y, H i s p an i c m a l e , an d R u i z m at c h e d th e d e s c r i p t i o no f th e t a l l , s k i nny,3

O f f i cer Sosa t es t i f

i ed t hat a “ po cke t war r ant ” i s di f f er ent f r om a r egu l ar ar r es t war r ant i n t hat i t ex pi r es 3 a fter 3 0 d a ys, w h ile a re g u la r w a rr a n t ex p ire s w h e n the su sp e c t i s a rr e ste d o r th e w a rr a n t i s re c a lled
.

O f f i cer So sa di d not o b t ai n a po cket warrant f o r Jam es Ruiz’ s arres t be cause, at t he t i m e o f t he 4 i den t i f i ca t i on , Rui z wa s de ce as ed. A p p e llan t co n c e d e d tha t his M a lib u ha d b e e n us e d in the ro b b e ry. 5 O ff ic e r S o sa c o u ld no t re c a ll the p o lygr a p h e r’s n a m e , b u t state d tha t i t wa s a m a le o ff ic e r. 6 O ff ic e r S o sa tes tif

ie d tha t he d id no t kn o w this to b e fac tua lly tru e , b u t t h a t i t ha d b e e n c o m m u n ic a te d to 7 h im b y the p o lygr a p h e r. Hispanic male . Mr. B alder as identified both appe llant and Ruiz in a photo arr ay . Mr. C amilo was
a ble to i de nti fy

on ly a pp e lla nt. Of fi c e r S os a se c ur e d a “ po c ke t w arr ant” fo r a

pp e lla nt’ s a rr e st. 3 4 On No ve mbe r 18, 20 03 , Of fi c e r S os a arr e ste d a

pp e lla nt i n a c onve nie nc e -s tor e pa

rk inglot
. Appellant wa s driving a

late-mode l gr een Che vy

Malibu. At the time of his arre st, police did not

5 g ive a pp e lla nt Miranda war

nings. At police headquar ters, Officer s Sosa and Her nandez questioned appellant a

bout the robbery and murder. Appellant, however, denied knowing any thing a bout the inc ide nt. Shortly there afte r, Off

icer s Sosa and Her

nandez took appellant to a police polyg raphe r, who
us e d the case fi le to d e ve lop the qu e sti on s to be a sk e d a nd the n a dmi nis te re d a

po lyg ra phte st t o
a pp e lla nt. Th is pr oc e ss too k thr e e to f our h ours to c omp le te . T he re c or d d oe s n ot r e fl e c t th e name of the office r who administered the te st, and when a sked, Off icer Sosa could not identify

the offic er. 6 L ikewise, the que stions that were a sked duringthe polyg raph e x amination are not in the rec ord. Af te r t he te st, Of fi c e rs Sos a and He rn and e z a g a in too k c us tod y of a pp e lla nt, and Of fi c e r S os a informed a

ppellant that he ha d failed the polyg raph e x am. Offic er So s a co n ceded that it is not 7 customary

for a s u s pect to be inf

ormed that he “fa iled” a te st; suspects are usually informed that “dec eption was indicated on some of the test questions.” The r ecord is silent as to which questions4

T he vi d eo t ap e was ma rked as s t at e’ s exhi b i t 1. P o rt i o ns o f t he i nt ervi ew are m i ss i ng be cause t he 8 v id e o ta p e w a s sto p p e d a t va rio u s p o ints, a n d so m e p o rtio n s w e re re d a c te d fro m the re c o rd
. the polyg raphe r deter

mined that appellant had answe red deceptively
. Offic ers then took a ppellant to mun ic ipa l c ourt , wh e re a ma g istrate g ave a

pp e lla nt Miranda and other statutory war nings f or the first time. Upon appellant’ s prompt return to the centr al holding station, O ffice rs Sosa and He rnande z aga i n qu es t ioned appe llant about the robbe ry and murde r. Off

icer Sosa repe ated the Miranda
war nings, a nd appellant g ave a

videotaped statement re g ardingthe incident. At the beg inning of 8 the video, appe llan t s tated that he ha d become awa re of cer tain fac ts about the crime thr oug h the polyg raph e x aminer. A lthough be fore the polyg raph a ppellant asserted t hat he was not awa re of the robber y and murder, on the videotape appellant discusse d pertinent infor mation reg ardingthe cr ime. Ap pe lla nt f ur the r s tate d th at he wa s n ot o ne of the a ssa ila

nts wh o ha d rob be d an d sho t th e vic tim s, but rather was a “lookout” person. He maintained that he ha d rema ined in the bac kseat of his Chevy Malib u thr o u g h o ut th e in c id e n t. Ap p e ll an t h a d in it ia ll y s tate d th at th e r e w e r e o n ly thr e e persons involved, but after

Offic er Sosa informed hi m of conflicting information, he then stated that there
wer e four persons involved in the incide nt. Appellant also asse rted t h at t h e individual who was actua lly car rying the rifle rese mbled appellant and that they could easily have be en mistaken for eac h other. Th e state in di cted a pp e lla nt f or c a pit a l murd e r. B e fo re tr ia l, a pp e lla nt f ile d a mot ion to
su pp re ss h is s tate me nt a

nd re qu e ste d a he ari ng . At the he ari ng on that mot ion , a pp e lla nt s ou g ht t o
s up p re s s t h e videotaped statement be cause he had not r ece ived Miranda war nings when he w as
arr ested or b efor e the polyg raph e x amination. Offic er Sosa wa s the state’s sole w itness at the5

“ A off i cer f rom [t he R o l l a] po l i ce d ep art m ent t est i f i ed t hat t he st rat egy o f

wi t hho l d i ng M i r anda warni ngs 9 u n til a fter inte rr o g a ting a n d d ra w ing o u t a c o n fes sio n w a s p ro m o te d no t o n ly b y his o w n d e p a rtm e n t, b u t b y a nat i onal pol i ce t r ai ni ng org ani zat i on an d ot her depart ment s i n w hi ch he had wor ked. ” S e ib e rt at 609.

In M i r anda v

. Ar iz ona , t h e U n ited S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rt a d d re sse d “inte rr o g a tio n p ra c tice s . . . l ike ly .
. . 10 to d isa b le [a n ind ivid u a l] fro m m a k ing a fre e a n d ra tio n a l ch o ic e ” a b o u t sp e a k ing
. M i r anda v

. Ar iz ona, 384 U
. S. 436, 445 ( 1966)

. T he C o urt uneq ui vo cal l y rul ed t hat an accused, hel d i n cust o d y , m ust be gi ven t he ad eq uat e and ef f ect i ve war ni ng s “ pri or t o ques t i oni ng , ” n ot mer el y bef ore s i gn i ng a w r i t t en s t at ement af t er al l t he cus t od i al inte rr o g a tio n is co m p le te
. Id

. at 445

. T he f ai l ur e t o gi ve t i mel y war ni ng s ge ner al l y r es ul t s i n t he s t at e bei ng r equi r ed to fo rfe it the us e o f an y sta te m e n t o b ta ine d d u rin g tha t i n te rr o g a tio n d u rin g it s c a se -in-c h ie f. Id

. W hen a d ef end ant al l ege s t hat t he M i r anda p ro te c tio n s w e re thw a rte d , t h e b u rd e n o f sho w ing a d m issib ili ty re sts o n the p ro se c u tio n . S e ib e rt, 5 4 2 U
. S. at 60 9 (quo t i ng B ro w n v . Illi n o is , 42 2 U
. S. 59 0 , 60 4 (19 7 5 ))
. hearing. T he trial c ourt found Of fice r Sosa to be a c redible w itness, concluded that appellant had
vo luntari ly

and kn ow ing ly

wa ive d h is right t o re ma in sil e nt, and a dmi tte d th e vid e ota

pe d s tate me nt. Onap p ea l , ap p el l an t ’s s o l e i s s u e w as th atthe “f ailure to Mirandize appellant be fore the initial int e rr og atio n a

nd the po lyg ra

phe xami nat io n led to c on sti tut ion a l e rr or in t he a dmi ssi on

of his videotaped statement at trial.” Martinez, 204 S.W .3d at 914. The co u rt of appe als aff irmed appellant’ s conviction, findingthat appel lant did not satisfy the five f actor s set out in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004). It f urther stated that the admission of the videotape d statement did not
c on sti tut e c on sti tut ion a l e rr or be c a us e it w a s ma de a ft e r a pr op e r a nd fu nc tio na l Miranda warn i n g. Id. at 922. In his petition t o this Court, appellant’ s sole claim is that the court of a ppeals misapplied the standards of Se ibe rt wh e n it c on sid e re d whe the r a

p r o p e r a n d f un c tio na l Miranda war

ning w as g iven. SEIB ERT Patricia Seiber

t was cha rg ed with murder. After

her a rre st, she g ave a

confe ssion about the murder without being g iven Miranda wa rn ing s. Seibert, 542 U.S. at 600. The de tective r eturne d

9 1 0 2 0 mi nute s late r , g ave Mi r a n da war nings, a nd obtained a signed wa iver a nd a sec ond confe ssion. Be fore trial, Seibert sought to ex clude both the unwarne d and wa rned state ments. The Missouri trial6

court e x cluded only

the unwar

ned stateme n t , and the defenda nt was convic ted of sec ond-degree murder. T he Missouri Supreme Court, however, r ever sed the de fenda nt’s conviction, statingthat the int e rr og atio n w a s c ontin uo us and that the se c on d state me nt wa s the pr od uc t of the inv a lid

fi rs t statement. The United States Supreme Court grante d c e rti orar i . A four- justice plurality

also ruled that Seibert’s war

ned statements wer e inadmissible. Seibert, 542 U.S. at 616. The Court stated that wh e n a c on fe ssi on

so ob ta ine d is of

fe re d a nd c ha lle ng e d, atte nti on

mus t be pa id t o the conf licting objec ts of Miranda and the que stion-first strategy . Miranda addre ssed “interr og ation prac tices . .
. likely
. . .to disa ble [an individual] from makinga fr ee a nd ratio na l c ho ic e ” a

bo ut sp e akin g , 38 4 U. S. at 46 4- 46 5, and he ld t hat a su sp e c t mu st be “a dequate ly

and ef fec tively” advise d of the c hoice the Constitution guar antee s. Id. at 467. Question-f

irst’s object, howe ver, is to re nder Miranda war nings ine ffe ctive by waitingto givethem until after the suspe ct ha s al ready confe ssed . . .. B y

any objective mea sure, it is likely that warn i n gs wi thheld until after inter rog ation and confe ssion will be ineffec tive in pr ep aringa suspec t for succ essive interr og ation, close in time and similar in content. The manifest purpose of question-fir st is to get ac o n f e s s i o n th e s u s p e c t w o u l d n o t m ak e i f h e un d e r s t o o d h i s r i g h t s at the ou tse t. When the war

nings a re inser ted in the midst of coordinated an dcontinuing i n t erro gat i o n , th ey

ar e l i k el y

t o m i s l ea d

an d “d ep ri v e ad ef

en d a n t o f kn o wl ed ge essential to hi s ability to understand the nature of his rights and the conse quence s of abandoningthem.” Moran v. Burbine , 475 U.S. 412, 424 (1986). Id. at 601. The plura lity

further emphasized that the threshold issue whe n interrog ators question first and warn l ater is thus whether it w ou ld b e re a so na

ble to f ind that in the se c ir c ums tanc e s th e wa rn ing s c ou ld f u n c tio n “ e ff

e c tiv e ly” a s Miranda re qu i re s . C o u l d th e w arn i n gs ef

fe ct i v el y adv i s e the suspect that he had a

rea l choice a

bout givingan admissible statement at that jun c tur e ? Cou ld t

he y re a so na bly c onve y that he c ou ld c ho os e to s top ta lki ng e ve n if he ha d ta lke d e arl ie r? Fo r u nle ss t he w arn ing s c ou ld p la c e a su sp e c t who ha s ju st been interrog ated in a position to make such an informed choice , there is no practica l justification for ac cepting the formal warning s as compliance with Miranda , or for tr ea t i n gthe sec ond stag e of inter rog ation as distinct from the first, unwa rned a nd ina dmi ssi ble se g me nt. Id. at 611-12. T h e p l ura l i ty

cr af t eda mu lti-factor

test for de termining

“whe ther M

ir a n da war nings de livered7

midstream” c ould be ef

fec tive. The c ontrast betwe en Elstad and this case reve als a series o f rele vant fa cts that bea r on whether Miranda wa

rn ing s d e liv e re d mi ds tr e am c ou ld b e e ff e c tiv e e nough to a c c omp lis h their objec t: the completeness a nd detail of the que stions and answer s in the fi rst round of interrog ation, the over lappingcontent o f the two stateme nts, the timi ngand settingof the first and the se cond, the c ontinuity of police pe rsonnel, and the de g ree to which the int e rr og ator ' s q

ue sti on s tr e ate d th e se c on d r ound a s c ontin uo us wi th t

he fi rs t. Id. at 615-16. Although a g ree ing “ with much in the car eful a nd convincing o p i n i on for the plur ality ,” J ustice Kennedy ’s concurring opinion took a nar rowe r view– Oregon v . Elstad , 470 U.S. 298 (1985), should be followed unless ther e is proof that the interrog atingoffice r knowing ly and willing utilized th e two -s t age t ec hn i qu e, thu s un d erm i n i n g Miranda war nings. J u s tice Ke nnedy ’s foc us was on “whe ther a dmission of the evidence under the circ umstances would f rustrate Miranda ’s ce ntral
conce rns and objec tives.” Se ibe rt at 619 (Ke nnedy , J ., concur ring ). He stated that [t]he plu ra lity c on c lud e s th at whe ne ve r a tw o- sta g e int e rv ie w oc c ur s, a dmi ssi bil ity o f th e p o s tw ar

n in gs tate ment s h o u ld

d e p e n d o n“ wh e th e r

[th e ] Miranda warn i n gs de liv e re d mi ds tr e am c ou ld h ave be e n e ff e c tiv e e no ugh to a c c omp lis h th e ir ob je c t” g iven the specific facts of the case. This test envisions an objective inquiry from the perspe ctive of the suspect, and a pplies in the cas e o f both intentional and unintentional two-stag e interr og ations . . .. In my view, [the plurality ’s] test cuts too broadly
. . .. I would apply a narr ower test applicable only

in the infreque nt case , such as we have he re, in whic h the two- s t ep interrog ation technique w as used in a calc ulated wa

y to undermine the Miranda war ning
. . .. Mi ra nd

a’ s clar ity is one of its streng ths, and a multifactor test that applies to ever

y two-stag e interrog ation may s e r v e t o un d e r

m i n e th atc l ar i ty. Cf. Be rk e me r v . M c Car ty , 468 U.S. 420, 430 (1984). The a dmissibi lity

of postwarning statements should c ontinue to be g overne d by the principles of Elstad unless the deliber ate two- step strategy was e mp l o yed. I f the deliberate two-step strategy has bee n u s ed, post war

ning statements that are related to the substance of

prew arningstatements must be excluded unless cura tiv e measure s are taken be fore the postwarningstatement is made. Curative measure s should be de signe d to e ns ur e tha

t a re a so na ble pe rs on

in t he su sp e c t’ s si tuatio n w ou ld understand the import and ef fec t of the Miranda war

ning a nd of the Miranda waiver
. For example, a subst antial bre ak in time and cir cumstance s betwee n the pre war ning8

T h e o ff ic e r sa t d o w n w ith E lstad a n d a sk e d him if he kn e w a p e rs o n b y the na m e o f G ro ss, a n d he sa id 11 tha t he d id a n d a d d e d tha t he ha d he a rd tha t t h e re w a s a ro b b e ry a t t h e G ro ss h o u se . A t t h a t p o int, the o ff ic e r to ld E lstad tha t he felt tha t E lstad w a s inv o lve d in the ro b b e ry. E lstad lo o k e d a t him a n d sta te d , “Y e s, I w a s the re .” statement and the Miranda war ning ma y suffice in most circumstance s, as it allows the ac cused to distinguish the two c ontext s and appreciate t hat t he interr og ation has taken a new turn. Cf. W

estove r v. United States , decide d with Miranda v. Arizona , 38 4 U .S. 43 6 .
. . (1 96 6) . A lte rn ativ e ly , a n a dd iti on a l w arn ingthat e xpla ins the lik e ly inadmissibil ity

of the pre war

ning c ustodial statement may be sufficie nt. No curative ste p s w e r e ta

k e n in th is c a s e , h o w e v e r , s o th e p o s tw ar n in g s tate me nts are inadmissible and the conviction ca nnot stand. Se ibe rt at 621-22 (K ennedy , J ., concur ring ). We find J ustice Ke nnedy ’s re asoningpersua sive. ELSTAD Be fore Se ibe rt, Elstad co n tro l l edwh enad dre s s i n g Miranda war ning violatio ns and the
corr espondingconfe ssions. In Elstad, a suspec t spoke a sing le incriminatingsentenc e at his home. 11 Elstad, 470 U.S. at 301

. Elstad had not receive d a Miranda wa rn ingbe fo re makin gthe state me nt,
a pp are ntl y be c a us e the po lic e of

fi c e rs did no t be lie ve that E lst a d w a s in c us tod y at the tim e of

his statement. Id. Elstad was take n to the police station, wher e he rec eived a proper war ning, w aived his Miranda rights, and made a second state ment. Id. He later argued that t h e s ec o n ds t atement should be suppresse d b ec ause it st emmed fr om the unwar ned first stateme nt. Id. at 302

. The Supreme Court he ld tha

t, a lthough a Miranda violation made the pre

-Miranda -wa rning statement ina dmi ssi ble , th e wa

rn e d state me nts c ou ld be int ro du c e d a g a ins t th e a c c us e d b e c a us e , g ive n th e fa c ts of t he case, “neither the g ener al goal of deter ring improper police conduct nor the Fifth Ame ndment g oal of a ssuringtrustworthy evidenc e would be served by suppression.” Id. at3 0 8 (c i t i n g Michigan v. Tucke r , 417 U.S. 433, 445 (1974)). AN AL YSI S Th is Court ha s n ot r e c e ntl y dir e c tly a dd re sse d mi ds tr e am Miranda wa rn ing s su c h a s th os e9

D ur i ng cr oss - exa mi nat i on at t he hea r i ng on appel l ant ’ s mo t i on t o s uppres s , O f f i cer Sosa t wi ce conce ded 12 t ha t he f ail ed t o give a p p ell an t his p ro p er w arn i ng s. g iven in this case, but bef

ore Seibert, in Jones v . State, 119 S.W .3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), we ad dr e s s edfa ct s s i m i l ar

t o th o s e p re s en t edh er e. Be fo re re ce i v i n g Miranda wa rn ing s, Jone s o ra lly admitted his involvement in two murders. Id. at 7 7 1
- 7 2
. A no f f ic e r wr o te d o wnth e defe ndant’s confe ssion “verbatim” on a statement for m. Id. After

the first conf

ession, the offic er re adthe defe ndant the Miranda war nings that appea

red at the top of the written f orm. Id. The off

icer and defe ndant re ad the state ment simult aneously , then the def endant c orre cted mistakes, initi al ed revisions, and signed the state ment at the bottom. Id. W e d e c l i n e d t o a p p l y Elstad , s tatin gthat, in contra st to Elstad , wher e the initial unwar ned stateme nt took place at the defe ndant’s home a

nd the war

ned s t at em ent was give n afte r transpor ting the defe ndant to the police station, the unwa rned and war

ned stateme nts in thi s case wer e g iven during a nearly undiffer entiated single event, taking place in the same room a s an uninterr

upted and c ontinuous proces s . The written statement [taken by Texas Rang er Ak in] was litera lly a tra nscription of appe llant’s unwar ned ora l statement a ft e r h e fi na lly

re c e ive d h is Miranda war nings; he simply signe d the written state me nt t

hat he ha d dic tate d to [ the po lic e of fi c e r] b e fo re he wa s w arn e d. To a pp ly Elstad he re and

de c lare the [se c on d] st ate me nt a dmi ssi ble by virtue of

the late admo n i s h m ent of the require d war nings w ould undermine the spirit and intent of Miranda . The wa iver of rights g iven in connec tion with the [ second] statement wa s not constituti onally

valid in light of the c ircumstance s and entire c ourse of police c on du c t. Jones, 119 S.W .3d at 775. The J on es Court held that the sec ond sta t em en t was inadmissible, but fo un d th at th e e rr or

in a dmi tti ngit w a s h arm le ss b e yon d a re a so na ble do ub t. Her e, the pe rt i n ent fa cts are undisputed: (1) appe llant was in custody and under

arr est for
c a pit a l murd e r; (2 ) O ff

ic e r S os a did no t g ive a

pp e lla nt Miranda wa

rn ing s at th e tim e of

his arr e st; (3) Of fice rs Sosa and Hernande z questioned appellant about the crime at the police station without g iving the r equire d war

nings; (4) appellant did not r ece ive Miranda war nings be fore beingtaken 1210

[ D ef en s e] : W h en y ou g ot dow n t o [ t h e pol i ce s t at i on , ] w h at ’ s t h e f i r s t t h i n g y ou do? [ O f f i cer Sosa ] : W e g ot t o t he [ po l i ce s t at i on]
. I ga t her ed t he cas e f i l e i nf ormat i on t oget her s o I’ d hav e i t at m y dis p o sal
. I ad vi sed hi m of why he was arr est ed agai n and I asked hi m i f he t ho ught t hat he m i ght want to sp e a k w ith u s.... [ D ef ens e] : H ad y ou r ead [ appel l ant ] hi s r i gh t s at t hat t i me? [O ff ic e r S o sa ]: H a d I re a d him

– I h a d n ’t re a d him his r igh ts a t t h a t t im e , no . * * * [D ef ense]: U p unt i l t he t i m e [y o u al l ] were goi ng t o t he m agi st rat e, y o u had not ad vi sed [ap p el l ant ] t hat he had a ny of

t he r i gh t s t hat y ou l at er ga ve hi m o n t he vi deot ape? [O ff ic e r S o sa ]: I d id no t re a d him his r igh ts fo rm a lly, no . T here i s no t est i m o ny i n t he reco rd t hat ap p el l ant was t o l d at any t i m e t hat he co ul d ref use t o t ake t he 13 p o l y graph exa m i nat i o n.

In t he m o t i o n f

o r new t ri al , ap p el l ant ’ s co unsel al l eged t hat t he st at e o b t ai ned t he nam e o f t he 14 p o lygr a p h e r b y c a lli n g the p o lice d e p a rtm e n t, b u t with h e ld this info rm a tio n un til a fter trial b e g a n . for a polyg raph e x amination; (4) the ide ntity of the polyg raphe r and the polyg raph- examination 13 questions are not included in the trial or a ppell at e rec ord; and (6) a mag istrate re ad the Miranda 14
war nings to a ppellant only

afte r both the first round of i nterrog ation and the polyg raph e x amination. Ba sed on these fac ts, w e have deter mined that “the two-step interrog ation technique was used in a calc ulated wa

y to undermine the Miranda war ning . . ..” Se ibe rt

at 621 (Ke nnedy , J ., concur ring ). The pa rties asser t contrar y positions as to the completene ss and detail of the questions and
answe rs in the first round of interrog ation. Appellant conte nds that the court of appea ls misapplied the Se ibe rt fa c tor s b y

fa ili ngto pl ace th e burd e n o f p ro of on the state to s atis fy

the fi ve fa c tor s, including the questions from the first interr og ation, and that it wa s the state’s burde n to show what questions were used duringthe polyg raph e x amination. The state c ontends that appellant has the burde n of produc ing a n adequate re cord a

nd that he has fa iled to develop the rec ord concerningwhat spec ific questions wer e aske d duringthe polyg raph11

examination and any

of the unwa

rned c onversations. See O rtiz v. State, 1 4 4 S. W. 3 d 2 2 5 ( T e x. App.–Houston [14th Dis t.] 2004, pet. ref’ d ) (stating that re peal of former rule (Rule 50( d)) of appellate proce dure doe s not absolve appe llant of his burden of pr esentinga re cord to show e rror requiringreve rsal ins ofar as he is require d to develop recor d to show nature a nd source of an e rror). The c ourt of appe als t o o k t h e same position, asserting that appellant did not submit an adequate re cord r eg ardingthe unwar ned stateme nts and questions asked dur ing the po l y g raph examination. I t stated that
at th e outset , we note that th e re is n o r e c or d o f M art ine z’s pr e -w arn ingstate me nts made to Of

fi cer s Sosa and Her

nandez or the polyg raph e x aminer. The first two fac tors that the S

e i be rt plurality found re levant in deter

mining whe ther Miranda war nings de l i vere d midstream ar e ef fec tive are the completene ss and detail of the questions a

nd answe rs in the first round of interrog ation and the overla pping c ontent of the two stateme nts. The dissent is troubled by Martinez’s two re fer ence s to the polyg raphe r tellinghim that three pe ople wer e shot duringthe in ci d en t. Unlike Se ibe rt , Martinez was repeatingthe pol yg raphe r’s ge nera l statements reg ardingthe crime, not his own unwar ned stateme nts. There fore , the first two Se ibe rt fac tors are not applicable in Ma

rtinez’s case
. Martinez , 204 S.W .3d at 921. Indeed, the rec ord i s lacking ; it does not contain a complete, or even pa rt ia l, d e sc ri pti on of the qu e sti on s and ans we rs in t

he fi rs t r ound

of int e rr og atio n a

nd po lyg ra phte st. Ev e n s o, thi s d oe s n ot p re c lud e ana ly sis
. The state, a s the proponent of the evidence o f ap p ell ant’s conf ession, bear s the burden of establishing its admissibilit y . T EX . R U LES E V ID . 104(a)
. Se eals o D ela Paz v . S tate , ___ S.W .3d

__ _, 20 08 Te x. Cr im. Ap p. L EX I S 75 1, at *2 6- 27 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ); Cof ie ld v . S tate , 891 S.W .2d 952, 954 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Fur ther, we have long he ld that the prosec ution bears the burden of provingadmissibili ty when a Miranda violation is found. See, e .g., Creager v. State, 952 S.W .2d 852, 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) ; Alvarado v . State, 912 S.W .2d 199, 211 (Tex. Crim. App.12

1 9 9 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Colorad

o v . Co nn e lly , 479 U.S. 157 (1986))
. When the office rs initially questioned
a pp e lla nt at th e po lic e statio n w ith out g ivi nghim Miranda war nings, the y

violated appe llant’s constitutional rights. At the suppression hearing, the state failed to provide the polyg raphe r’s name, the questions used duringthe polyg raph e x amination, or the c ontent of the initial interrog ation of appellant, a ll of which ar e under the exclusive control of the state
. Th e state a lso a sse rt s t hat this c a se is d ist ing uis ha ble fr om Se ibe rt beca

use there is no
e v i d e n c e th ata

p p e l l an tm a d e any

i n c r i m i n at i n gs t at e m e n t s b e f o r e h e w a s g i v e nh i s Mi r a nda
war nings. We a g ree with Justice Kenne dy (and the plurality in Se ibe rt) t hat “not eve ry violation of [Miranda ] requires suppre ssion of the evidenc e obtained. E vidence is admissibl e whe n the ce ntral
conce rns of Miranda are not likely to be implicated and when other objectives of the criminal justice sy stem are best serve d by

its int roduction.” Se ibe rt at 61 8- 19 (K e nn e dy , J., c on c ur ri ng ). In s ome
case s, ano f

f ic e r mi g h t n o t r e c o g n iz e th at a s u s p e c t i s in

c u s to dy an d th at w ar n in g s ar e the ref

ore
re qu ir e d. We a lso a g re e that th e su pp re ssi on of wa rn e d s tate me nts un de r s uc h a c ir c ums tanc e wo uld
serve “neither

the g ener al g oal of deter

ring improper police conduc t nor the F ifth Amendment g oal of assuringtrustworthy

evidenc e.” Elstad , 470 U.S. at 308. In d eed, Elstad provides a pr actica l ap p ro ac ht o en fo rc i n g Miranda protec tions. “[A] suspect who has once responde d to unwarne d yet
uncoer cive que stioning is not thereby disabled fr om waivinghis rights a nd confe ssing a fter he has been give n the re quisite Miranda war nings.” Id. at 318. Contrary to Elstad , howeve r, a

Miranda
war ning g iven midstream, as in this case , require s a close r ex am i n ati on of the investig atory techniques use d befor e and a fter Miranda war nings a re g iven. Whe n a qu e sti on -f

ir st i nte rr og atio n b e g ins , it c ann ot b e kn own wh e the r t he su sp e c t w ill incriminat e h i m s el f, but the suspec t’s rights as set out in Miranda have a lrea dy been violate d.13

O f f i ce r Sos a t es t i f

i ed t h at t h e f

i r s t i n t er r og at i on t ook pl ac e at 1200 T r av i s a n d t h e s ec on d i n t er r og at i on 15 to o k p la c e a t 6 1 R e isn e r, the c e n tra l ho ld ing a re a .

T h e S e ib e rt pl ur al i t y ar t i cul at ed t hat i nt ent i s not t he di s po s i t i ve f act or i n det er mi ni ng wh et her an of f i cer 16 used t he q uest i o n- f

i rs t s t rat egy “because t he i nt ent of t he o f f i cer wi l l rar el y be as cand i d l y ad m i t t ed as i t was her e (even as i t i s l i kel y t o de t erm i ne t he co nd uct of t he i nt errogat i o n); t he f o cus i s o n f

act s ap art f

rom i nt ent t hat s ho w t he ques t i on- f

i r s t t act i c a t wor k. ” S e ib e rt a t 6 1 6
. T he S e ib e rt p l ural i t y s t at ed t hat “ i t wo ul d ord i nari l y be unreal i st i c t o t reat t wo s p at es of i nt egrat ed and 17 p ro xim ately co nd uc t ed q ue st i o ning a s i nd ep en d en t i nterro ga t i o ns sub je ct t o i nd ep en d en t ev alua t i o n sim p l y be ca use M i r anda war ni ng s f

ormal l y punc t uat e t hem i n t he mi dd l e. ” S eib ert a t 614. “ As J u s t i ce Sou t er poi n t s ou t , t h e t wos t ep t ech ni que per mi t s t he acc us ed t o concl ude t hat t he r i gh t not t o re s po nd di d not ex i s t wh en t he ear l i er inc rim ina ting sta te m e n ts w e re m a d e . T h e stra te g y is b a se d o n the a ssu m p tio n tha t M i r anda w a rn ing s w ill ten d to Although both Elstad and Se ibe rt involved i n criminatingstatements in the first interr og ation that
wer e repe ated in the second, that was not the foc us of the holding s. In both case s, the prime conc ern was the c onstitut ional rights that the Miranda decision was intended to protec t. Se ibe rt at 611, 619, 62 1 ( wh e the r w arn ing s c ou ld f un c tio n eff

ect iv e ly , a s Miranda require s (plurality ); “whe ther admission of the evidenc e under the circ umstances would f rustrate Miranda ’s ce ntral conc ern a nd objectives” ; whether the two-step interrog ation technique was used in a ca lculated wa y to undermine the Miranda warn i n g(Ke nnedy , J ., concur ring )). It is im materia l to our consideration whether incriminatingstatements emerg ed fr om the unwar ned interr og ation. Her e, appe llant was in custody for the pur

poses of Miranda ; he g ave both state ments to lawenfor ceme nt officials a fter his for mal arr est pursuant to an arrest warra nt, and both statements wer e g iven at a police station. This indicates that the a bsence of Miranda war

nings at the beg inning of 15 the interrog ation proce ss was not a mistake based on the interrog ating office rs’ mistaken belief that appellant wa s not in custody , but rather a consc ious choice. 16 The state c halleng es the c ourt of appea ls’s findingof continuity of police pe rsonnel, arguing that there was a “substantial br eak” betwee n the two statements; and that, ther efor e, the inter rog ation
wa s n ot c ontin

uo us . T he re c or d d oe s n ot s up po rt thi s a rgume nt. 1714

mea n l es s w h en r ec i t ed mi d- i n t er r og at i on , a f t er i n cu l pat or y s t at eme n t s h av e al r ea dy be en obt ai n ed. ” Se i ber t a t 620 (K enned y , J. , co ncurri ng).

O f f i cer Sosa al s o t es t i f

i ed t hat t hey f

ed appel l ant at s om e poi nt dur i ng t he day , an d t hat appel l ant was 18 al l owed t o cal l hi s f

at her an d gi r l f

r i end, but O f

f i cer Sosa coul d not gi ve a s peci f i c t i me. The interr og ation proce ss was lengthy . Offic er Sosa testified that he ar rested a ppellant midmorning a

nd that he and O ffice r He rnande z first questioned appe llant reg ardingthe ca se ar ound 10:00 a.m. Shortly

afte r the fir st interrog ation ended, a ppellant was taken to the polyg raphe r and g ive n a p o ly

g r a p h e xami n ati o n , wh ic h to o k thr e e to f o ur h o ur s . Imm e d iate ly f o ll o w in g the polyg raph e x amination, appellant wa s taken to the muni cipal court, where a mag istrate administere d Miranda war

nings at approxim ately

5:00 p.m., se ven hours a fter the first questioning. A fter be ing
arr aigned, appe llan t wa s re tu rned to the c entra l holding station and g ave his videota ped, wa rned,
se c on d s tate me nt at a

pp ro ximate ly

5:1 5 p .m. 18 Deter min i ngwhether

a suspec t was in the continuous pre sence of police pe rsonnel ca nnot be ac complished by

focusingon only the lapse of time be tween the two statements; it is determined by c on sid e ri n g

a l l of the e ve nts that oc c ur

re d b e tw e e n th e unwa

rn e d s tate me nt a

nd wa rn e d s tate me nt. Throughout the day

of his arr est on this charg e, appe llant was with police off icer s or other police depar tment personnel or

detained in a

police fa cility . The same office rs condu ct ed the f irst and second pe riods of questioning , and aside from the time duringwhich the polyg raph t est was
a dmi nis te re d by ano the r po lic e of fi c e r, the y we re bo th c ontin uo us ly wi th a pp e lla nt. F ro m arr e st t o questioning to polyg raph to magistration to questioni ng , the pre sence of police pe rsonnel wa s uninterrupted. We disce rn no “substantial bre ak in time and cir cumstance s betwee n the pre war ning statement and the Miranda war ning.” Appellant asser

ts that the court of a

ppeals e rre d in failingto consider that Of fice rs Sosa and15

[O ff ic e r S o sa ]: R e m e m b e r, I to ld yo u tha t I’m no t go ing to ya n k yo u r c h a in; [th a t] I’m no t go ing to b u ll 19 [ s ] h * * a r ou n d?

[A p p el l ant ]: Y eah. Her nandez did not tell him t hat all of the p ri o r qu es t ioning wa s improper a nd that it could not be used ag ainst him. The state argues t hat appellant was properly war ned of his rights and waive d them be fo re g ivi nghis vid e ota

pe d s tate me nt. It is e vid e nt that th e of

fi c e rs tr e ate d th e vid e ota

pe d inte rr og atio n a s a

c ontin uatio n o f t he fi rs t; as in Sie be rt , at th e be g inn ingof the se c on d inte rr og atio n, Of fi c e r S os a

re fe rr e d to the f

ir st interrog ation and re stated what he had told appellant dur ing the first interview. Whil e the que stions 19 and answ ers f

rom the first round of interr og ation are not in the rec ord, we can c onclude f rom Off icer Sos a ’s re fe re nc e to t

he fi rs t int e rr og atio n th at a pp e lla nt c ou ld r e a so na

bly a ssume that a

c ontin uit y
e xiste d b e tw e e n th e tw o inte rr og atio ns . On the video, Of

fice r Sosa beg an by

rea ding the Miranda war nings to a p p ellant. He the n
a sk e d a pp e lla nt i f h e un de rs too d h is rights , a nd a pp e lla nt r e pli e d a ff

ir mativ e ly . B oth

officers, howeve r, fa iled to inform appellant that, ba sed on the lac k of Miranda war nings, any prior stateme nt
ma de duri nga

pr e vio us int e rrog atio n, inc lud ing the po lyg ra phe xam, c ou ld b e no t us e d a g a ins t hi m. The po l y graph te st, in and of itself, poses great conce rn. B efor e takingthe polyg raph,
a pp e lla nt d e nie d k nowi nga

bo ut t he c ri me . O ff

ic e r S os a fa ile d to inf

or m a pp e lla nt t hat he c ou ld ref u s e t o take the polyg raph te st or that, afte r startingthe test, he c ould stop at any time. See generally T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 15.051. At the conc lusion of the test, Offic er Sosa infor med
a pp e lla nt t hat he ha d “ fa ile d” the te st wi tho ut ind ic atin g that th e re su lts sh ow e d d e c e pti on a s to so me
an s we rs, nor did he tell appellant which que stions appellant had answ ere d deceptively . As16

T he S e ib e rt p lur a lit y e m p h a siz e d tha t 20 [ i ] t s ee ms h i g h l y u n l i k el y t h at a s u s pec t c ou l d r et ai n a n y s u ch und ers t andi n g w h en t h e i n t er r og at or l ead s hi m a s eco nd t i m e t hrough a l i ne o f que st i o ni ng t he sus p ect has al rea d y a n sw e re d fu l l y . T he p o i nt i s no t t hat a l at er unknowing or i nvo l unt ary co nf ess i o n cancels o ut an earl i er, ad eq uat e warni ng; t he p o i nt i s t hat t he warni ng i s unl ikel y t o be ef f ect i ve i n t he q uest i o n- f i rs t s eq uence we have des cr i bed. S eib ert a t 614 n
. 5. J u stice K e n n e d y no te d tha t [t]h e tec h n iq u e us e d in this c a se d isto rts th e m e a n ing o f M i r anda a n d furth e rs no leg iti m a te count er vai l i ng i nt er es t
. T he M i r anda ru le w o u ld b e frus tra te d w e re w e to a llo w p o lice to und erm i ne i t s m eani ng and ef f ect
. T he t echni q ue si m p l y creat es t o o hi gh a ri sk t hat po st warni ng sta te m e n ts w ill b e o b ta ine d w h e n a su sp e c t wa s d e p riv e d o f “kn o w le d g e e sse n tial to his a b ili ty t o un ders t and t he nat ur e of hi s r i gh t s an d t he cons equen ces of aban do ni ng t hem. ” M or an v . Bur bi ne , 4 7 5 , U
. S. 41 2 , 42 3
- 2 4
. . . (19 8 6 ). S e ib e rt a t 6 2 1 (K e n n e d y, J., c o n c u rr ing ). prev io u s ly

n o te d , th e p o ly

g r a p he xami n e r , an d

th e f a c ts le ar n e d b y a p p e ll an t f r o m t h e p oly g raph
e xami ne r, we re me nti on e d by a pp e lla nt and the of

fi c e rs in the vid e o. It ha s lo ngbe e n th e ru le in t his state that re fer ence s to a polyg raph test, or to its results, are inadmissible f or all purposes. Se eNesb it v. State 2 2 7 S
. W
. 3 d

6 4 , 6 6 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Ne the ry v . S tate , 692 S.W .2d 686, 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)). Henc e, the officer s had the re sponsibili ty to inform appellant that the questions asked during polyg raph te st, or the test results, could not be use d at trial and that any mention of the test at trial wa s likewise prohibited. This, coupled w ith the fac t that the office rs initiated the conver sation reg ardingthe first interr og ation, likely cre ated the be lief in appe llant’s mind that he was c ompelled to ag ain discus s t h e m at ters ra ised in the first interviewduringthe second inter

view. 20 I f t he de lib e rate tw o- ste p str ate g y ha s bee n use d, “ po stw arn ing sta te me nts that ar e re late d to the substance of prew arning statements must be excluded unless curative measure s are taken be fore the postwarningstatement is made.” Se ibe rt at 619 (Ke nnedy , J ., co n cu rr i ng ). We agree that17

T h e sta te ’s as se rtio n m u st a lso fail b e c a u se the p o lygr a p h tes t, w h ic h w a s n o t co m p le te d un til 21 ap p ro xim ately 4 : 3 0 p .m ., wa s an integra l p art o f t he unw arn ed st atem en t
. L ess than an ho ur a f t er the p o l ygrap h test ended, pol i ce began t he s econd i nt er r ogat i on proces s , t her eby l eav i ng an i ns ubs t ant i al bre ak bet ween t he t wo inte rr o g a tio n s.

T h e se e x a m p le s a re no n e x c lus ive , b u t t h e y p ro v id e gu id a n c e a s to w h e n c u ra tive m e a su re s a re ne e d e d
. 22 “cur ative measure s should be designed to e nsure that a re asonable person in the suspec t’s situation would understand the import and eff ect of the Miranda warn i n g an dof the Miranda waiver .” Id. Ex amp l es o f ap p ro p ri at e c ura t i v e m ea s ure s i n cl u d e: (1 ) as u b s t an t i al b re aki nt i m e and circ umstances b et we en the unwar

ned stateme nt and the Miranda w ar n in g ( K e nn e dy

) ; ( 2 ) e xp la in in g to the 21 defe ndant that the unwa

rned state ments, taken while in custody , are likely inadmissible (Kenne dy

); (3) in fo rm ing the suspect that, although he pre viously g ave inc riminating infor mation, he is not obligated to repe at it (plurality ); (4) the interrog atingoffice rs re fra in from re fer ringto the unwar

ned statement unless the de fenda nt refe rs to it f

i rs t (p l u ra l i ty); or (5) if the def endant doe s ref

er to the pre- Miranda state me nt, the int e rr og atin gof fi c e r s tate s th at the de fe nd ant i s n ot o bli g ate d to dis c us s the content of

the first statement (plurality). No cur ative steps we re taken in this case. 22 The off icer s had the re sponsibili ty of applyin g cu ra t i v e measure s at the beg inning of the second inter

view, or, at the very

least, whe n they

ref err ed to the first interrog ation of appe llant. They did neither. Such omissions or actions ar e not likely “to ensure that a re asonable person in the suspect’s situation would understa nd the import and ef

fec t of the M

ira n d a wa rn i n gand of the Miranda waiver .” Se ibe rt at 622 (Ke nnedy , J ., concur ring ). Curative measure s allow the ac cused “to distinguish the two conte x ts and appre ciate that the interrog ation has take n a new turn.” Id
. In th is c a se , th e of

fi c e rs did no t a pp ri se a pp e lla nt o f h is Miranda ri gh t s when they beg an custodial interrog ation and failed to a pply any curative measure s in or der to a meliorate the ha rm
cause d by the Miranda v io lati o n . Ap p e ll an t’ s v id e o ta p e d s tate me n t w a s th e r e f

o r e in a dmi s s ib le
. We18

re ve rs e the jud g me nt o f t

he c ourt of a pp e a ls a nd re mand thi s c a us e to the c ourt of a

pp e a ls so that it
may c on du c t a

ha rm ana ly sis
.

Deliver ed: Dec ember

17, 2008 Pub lis h