## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0307- 09 R O N A L D W I L S O N , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE FOUR TH CO URT O F AP PEALS

BEX AR CO UNTY P erC uriam . K EASLE R , J ., f i l e d a di s s e nt i ng opi ni on i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P. J. , and H ERVEY , J. , j oi ne d.

OP I NI ON ON S TA TE ’ S M OTI ON F OR RE HEAR I NG W e denyt he St at e’ s m ot i on for r ehea r i ng, but addr es s i t s fi r s t gr ound forr ehea r i ng, i n w hich t he S t at e argues th a tapp el l ant di d n ot pr eser ve, i n the t ri al cou rt , t he p reci se
c o m p lain t th a t f

o rm s th e b a sis o f

th e d e c is io n b y b o th th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls a n d th is C o u rt. T hi s i s t r ue, butof no cons equenc e undert he uni que ci r cumst ance s of t hi s cas e. A ppel l antpr oper l ypr es erve d a compl ai ntt hatD et ect i ve R ober t s vi ol at ed Sect i on 37. 10 of t he Penal C ode w hen he f al s i fi ed a l egi t i m at e governm entdocument–an off i ci alWil son Pag e 2

Ap pe lla nt’ s so lepo int

of e rror in t hec ourt of a pp e a ls w a s a s f

oll ow s: 1 Th e tria l c ourt a

bu se d its disc re tio n whe n it de nie d App e lla

nt’ s mo tio n to su

pp re ss the video interrog ation of Appellant beca use the confe ssion wa s obtained in violation of the law s of the State of Texas a nd thus prohibited under a rticle 38.23 of theTexas Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant set out the pertinent provisions of Section 37.01(2) (A) de fininga “g overnme ntal rec ord,” Section 37.09, “Tampering With or Fabricating Phy sical Evidence,” a nd Section 37.10, “Tampering Witha Go ve rnme ntal Re c ord. ” Af te r s e tti ngout D e t. Rob e rt s’ te sti mony , ap pe lla nt a sse rt e d: “ Thus , Detec tive Roberts clea

rly violated section 37.10(a) (2) and possibly section 37.09(a) (2), of the Texas Penal Code.” A

ppellant then went on to argue, at greater length, how the Be x ar County Criminal Investig ation L aboratory

fing erprint repor

t met the definiti on of a gove rnmental re cord. A ppellant co n cl u d edh i s b ri ef

wi thth e f

o l l o wi n g: In th e ins tant c a se , th e tria l c ourt a bu se d its dis c re tio n whe n it de nie d th e mot ion

to su pp re ss b e c a

us e De te c tiv e Rob e rt s ta

mpe re d wit h (f

a bric ate d) theB e xar

County Crimi na l Inv e sti g atio n Repo rt (a g ov e rnme nt doc ume nt) and us e d or p re se nte d it to Appellant and D etec tive Roberts intended it to b e take n as a g enuine g overnme nt document in orde r to coe rceinformation from Appe llant. T his w as a cle ar violation of ar ticle 38.23 of the Te x as Code of Crimi n al P ro cedure and thus the c onfession shoul d have be en excluded. F or these reasons, the c ause should be rever sed and re mand e d b a c k to thetria l c ourt fo r a ne w tri a l. Appellant’s B rief on D irec t Appeal at 8. B exarC ount yfi ngerpr i ntr epor t–i n t he t r i al cour t
. A ppel l antt i m el y , s peci fical l y , and rep ea te dl ybr ought t hatPenal C ode s ect i on, w hi ch pr ohi bi t s t amper i ng w i t h a governm ent

r ecor d, t o t he t r i al j udge’ s at t ent i on. H e obt ai ned an a dver s e ruli n g . A n d t hen he br ought pr eci s el yt he s ame com pl ai ntt o t he cour t of appe al s : D et
. R ober t s vi ol at ed Sect i on 37. 10 of t he Penal C ode w hen he f abr i cat ed a f

or ens i c fi ngerpr i nt r epor t ; t her efor e, under t he Texas excl us i onar yr ul e, A r t i cl e 38. 23 of t he C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e, anyevi dence obt ai ned

as a r es ul tof t hatl aw vi ol at i on w as i nadmi s s i bl e at t r i al
. A ppel l antal s o m ent i oned Sect i on 1 37. 09, t he more i ncl us i ve pena l s ect i on pr ohi bi t i ng t amper i ng w i t h any phy s i cal evi dence (i n clud ing , b u t no t l im it ed to, t am p ering w ith a go v ern m en t rec o rd), in his b ri ef to th e c o u rtWil son Pag e 3

See note 1. 2 At or a l argume nt, the jus tic e s ra ise d th e iss ueof Se c tio n 3 7. 09 , a

nd thepros e c uto r c or

re c tly 3 no te d th at sh e did

no t th ink tha t a pp e lla nt h a d r e lie d u

po n th at pa

rt ic ula r s e c tio n in

thetria l c ourt , but sh e the n a

rgue d th at ne ith e r S e c tio n 3 7. 09 no r 3 7. 10 sh ou ld a pp ly to D e t. Rob e rt s’ s c on du c t. SeeTallan t v . S

tate , 7 4 2 S
. W
. 2 d

2 9 2 ( T e x. C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 8 7 ) (p l ur a l i ty o p . ); se eals o 4 Fa rre ll v . S

tate , 86 4 S.W. 2d 50 1 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 19 93 ); Ro c he llev . S tate , 7 9 1 S. W. 2 d

1 2 1 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1990). of appe al s , buthe di d notbas e hi s cl ai m on t hatpr ovi s i on. 2 T he cour tof appe al s deci ded t he cas e by r el y i ng on Sect i on 37. 09, t he more i ncl us i ve p en al pro v isi o n o f tam p ering w ith p h y sical ev iden ce , rathe r th an S ec ti o n 3 7
. 1 0 , the m o re restri cti v e p en al pro v isi o n o f tam p ering w ith a g o v ern m en t do cu m en t. T h u s, itw as th e c o u rt
o f a p p e a l s , n o ta p p e l l a n t , t h a ts h i f t e d t h e g r o u n d f

r o m S e c t i o n 3 7
. 1 0 t o 3 7
. 0 9
. O b v i o u s l y,
a p p e lla n t d id n o t co m p lain a b o u t th a t sh if t: h e h a d p re v a iled . B u t n e ith e r d id th e S tate compl ai n about th at s h ift t o t he cour t of appe al s or t o t hi s C our t
. I ns t ead, i t acc ept ed t he 3

cour tof appe al s ’ s r es ol ut i on of t he cl ai m under Sect i on 37. 09, and ar gued i n t hi s C our tt hat t he Texas excl us i onar y rule di d notbart he admi s s i on of appe l l ant ’ s s t at ement obt ai ned as

a r es ul tof D et
. R ober t s ’ s vi ol at i on of Sect i on 37. 09. I t s s ol e gr ound forr evi ew r ead, D i d t he cour tof appe al s er r i n equat i ng t he use of dece pt i on i n t he cr eat i on of a document fori nt er r ogat i on purpos es w i t h a vi olat i on of Tex. Pen. C ode 37. 09? W e r el i ed on t he T

a lla n t li n e o f c ase s to h o ld that, u n d er the se c ir cu m stan ce s, there 4

w as no i s s ue bef

or e us conce r ni ng t he pr opr i et y of t he cour t of appeal s ’ s r el i ance on s ect i on 37. 09, t amper i ng w i t h evi dence , as oppos ed t o s ect i on 37. 10, t amper i ng w i t h a governm ent alWil son Pag e 4

W ils on v . S tate , No. PD-0307-09, ____ S.W .3d ____, 2010 WL715253 (Tex. Crim. App. 5 Mar. 3, 2010)
. Tallant , 742 S.W .2d at 293. 6 Id
. 7 Id . at 294. 8 Id
. 9 re c o rd , in re s o lv in g a p p e lla n t’ s T e x a s e x c lu s io n a ry-r u le c la im
. T he St at e ar gues i n i t s m ot i on forr ehea r i ng t hatt her e i s s o m e conf l i ctbet w een the Tal l antl i ne of c as es ci t ed byt he C our t i n i t s or i gi nal opi ni on and t he more r ece ntcas es 5 d isc u ss in g th e im p o rta n c e o f p re se rv a tio n o f

e rro r in th e trial c o u rt. T h e S tate h a s a p o in t. I n Tal l ant , t he def

endant cl ai m ed, i n t he cour t of appe al s , t hatt he t r i al j udge err ed by admi t t i n g 1 , 0 3 6 p h o t o g r a p h s o f th e t w el ve- y ear - ol d aggr avat ed r ape vi ct i m t hatt he def endant had t aken. H e ar gued t hat t hey w er e sei zed under an i nval i d s ear ch w ar r ant
. T he St at e had

6 7

conce ded, i n t hat cour t , t hat t hei r s ei zur e w as i m pr oper , but ar gued t hatt hei r admi s s i on w as har m l es s er r or . T he cour tof appe al s hel d t hatt hei r admi s s i on w as r ever sible erro r . T he 8 St at e t hen fi l ed a pet i t i on for di s cr et i onar y r evi ew w i t h t hi s C our t , cl ai m i ng, fort he fi r s t t i m e, t hatt he def

endanthad fa i l ed t o pr es er ve t he i s s ue of t he val i di t y of t he sea r ch w ar r anti n t he t r i al cour t
. I n Tal l antw e s t at ed: J us t as an appe l l antm us tpr oper l ypr es ent p o ints of e r r ort o t he cour t of appea l s fori t s deci s i on i n or dert o compl ai n o f an a dver s e det er m i nat i on by w ayof gr ound for r evi ew , w e hol d t hat t he S t at e m us t cal l t o t he at t ent i on of t he cour tof appe al s i n an or der l yand t i m el yfas hi on t hatan al l eged e r r orw as notpr es er ved. 9Wil son Pag e 5

Se e, e .g., Mo orev . S

tate , 295 S.W .3d 329, 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“Pre servation of 10 e rror is a sy ste mic re qu ir e me nt o f e ve ry a pp e a l.” ); Ma

y s v . S tate , 28 5 S. W.3 d 8 84 , 8 89 (T e x. Crim. App. 2 0 0 9 ) (p rocedural- defa ult questions, raised by

the State for thefirst time in a petition for dis c re tio na

ry re vie w, areprop e rl y

be fo rethi s Co ur

t) ; Haley v . State, 1 7 3 S. W. 3 d 5 1 0 , 5 1 5 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2005) (“preser vation of er

ro r i s a s y stemic requir ement that must be re viewed by the court of a ppeals re g ardle ss of whethe r the issue is ra ised by the par ties”). 305 S.W .3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 11 Id. at 532-33 (f

ootnotes omitt ed). 12 O urm or e r ece nt“pr es er vat i on i s a s y s t emi c r equi r ement ” l i ne of ca s es have e r oded t he ac t ual hol di ng i n Tal l ant : n o w it is th e d u ty o f th e a p p e llate c o u rts to e n su re th a t a c laim i s pr es er ved i n t he t r ial cour tbefor e addr es s i ng i t s m er i t s . A s w e r ece nt l ys t at ed i n Ford 10

v . S ta te , 11 Pr es er vat i on of err or i s a s y s t emi c r equi r ement on appea l
. I f an i s s ue has not b e e n p re se r v e d f

o r a p p e a l, ne ith e r th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls n o r th is C o u rt sh o u ld addr es s t he mer i t s of t h ati s s ue. O r di nar i l y , a cour t of appe al s s houl d r evi ew p re se rv a tio n o f

e rro r o n its o w n m o tio n , b u t if it d o e s n o t d o so e x p re ss ly , this C our tcan a nd s houl d do s o w hen conf r ont ed w i t h a pr es er vat i on qu es t i on. 12 T h u s, u n dert he new cas es , t he St at e’ s fai l ur e t o r ai s e pr es er vat i on t o t he cour tof appea l s i s no l ongera bart o i tr ai s i ng i t fort he fi r s t t i m e i n t hi s cour t i n a pet i t i on for d i s c r e t i o n a r yr e v i e w. B utt hatdoes notchange t he r es ol ut i on i n t hi s cas e. T he St at e di d not fi l e a mot i on forr ehea r i ng i n t he cour tof appe al s poi nt i ng out i t s r el i ance upon ( u npr es er ved) Sect i on 3 7 .0 9 , i n s te a d o f

(p re se rv e d ) S e c tio n 3 7 .1 0 , n o r d id it rais e a n yp re se rv a tio n iss u e in its p eti ti o n fo r discre ti o n ary rev iew
. R athe r, itsim p lyso u g h t discreti o n aryrev iew o f th e c o u rt
o f a p p e a ls’s h o ld in g , ru n n in g th e risk o f th is C o u rt a ss u m in g
– a s it d id

– th a t th e lo sin g p a rtyWil son Pag e 6

SeeG EORGE E. D I X & R OB E R T O. D AW S ON , 43A T EX A S P RACT I CE : C RI M I N A L P RACT I CE 13 AND P ROCE D U RE § 4 4
. 2 7 c ( 2 d e d
. & Su p p . 2 0 0 9
- 2 0 1 0 ) (under Gallupsv . S tate , 151 S.W .3d 196 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), a “par ty ’s failure to preser

ve an issue in the trial court for consideration on dire c t a pp e a l . . . is no t disp os iti ve of wh e the r on dis c re tio na ry re vie w the Court of Crimi na l App e a ls should address it. The high court c an prope rly consider a matter not pre serve d in this sense if the court of a ppeals a ddresse d it and it was within the scope of the grant of review.” ). did not fi nd any m eaningfu l dis t i ncti on betw een the preser ved a n d u n p res erved t heo ri es. 13 T h e a ss u m p tio n h e re m a d e p e rf e c t se n se : th e S tate ’s p o sitio n is, a n d w a s, th a t d e c e p tio n in t he cr eat i on of appa r entevi dence and i t s us e t o i nfl uence a sus pect t o gi ve a c onfes s i on does

n o t v i o l a t e t h e Te x a s e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e
– r e g a r d l e s s o f whe t h e r wha t i s c r e a t e d i s a fa ke g o v e rn m e n t d o c u m e n t o r s o m e o th e r f a k e e v id e n c e . E v e n if w e g ra n ted th e S tate ’s m o tio n f o r re h e a rin g , the re s u lt w o u ld sim p lyb e to

r emand t hi s cas e t o t he cour tof appe al s t o addr es s the s ame excl us i onar y - r ul e cl ai m us i ng appel l ant ’ s pr es er ved Sect i on 37. 10 bas i s , r at her t han t he Sect i on 37. 09 bas i s t hatt he l ow er
cour tr el i ed upon. T her e s eems l i t t l e poi nti n expendi ng s car ce j udi ci al reso u rce s i n t hat

e n d e a v o r. U ndert he uni que ci r cumst ance s of t hi s cas e, w her e w e w er e neve r , unt i l now ( aft er t he C our tm ent i oned t he di s cr epanc yon i t s ow n) , confr ont ed w i t h a pr es er vat i on ques t i on by t he par t i es , and w e w er e not , on our ow n, confr ont ed w i t h a pre s er vat i on i s s ue t hatm ade a ny di ffe r ence t o t he r es ol ut i on of t he mer i t s , w e denyt he St at e’ s m ot i on.

D el i ver ed: J une 9, 2010 P ub l i sh