## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO S

. PD

- 0 018

- 22 & PD

- 0019

- 22

THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

SEBASTIAN TORRES, Appellee

ON STATE ' S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE THIRTEENTH C OURT OF APPEALS

HIDALGO COUNTY

N EWELL, J.

, file d a concurring opinion

.

I a g r e e w i t h t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t a t i s s u e i n

t h i s c a s e s h o u l d h a v e b e e n s u p p r e s s e d

. H o w e v e r

, I d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e t h a t t h e C o u r t r e l i e s o n t o j u s t i f y t h e s a m e

c o n c l u s i o n

. T h e C o u r t f a i l s t o a d e q u a t e l y a d d r e s s t h e S t a t e ’ s t e x t u a l

a r g u m e n t

, a n d ultimately a v o i d s a m u c h s i m p l e r r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s

c a s e

. R a t h e r t h a n i n t e r p r e t t h e ambiguous p h r a s e “ u s e s t h eT orres Concurri ng

— 2

p r o c e d u r e ” i n t h e s t a t u t e t o e s s e n t i a l l y m e a n “ s t a r t s t h e p r o c e d u r e

, ” I

w o u l d f o c u s instead o n w h e r e t h e “ p r o c e d u r e ” a t i s s u e b r o k e d o w n

.

T h e p r o b l e m i n t h i s case i s t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s f a i l e d t o b r i n g t h e j u v e n i l e

a n d t h e r e c o r d i n g o f t h e j u v e n i l e ’ s s t a t e m e n t b a c k t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e

j u d g e d e s p i t e t h e j u d g e ’ s r e c o r d e d r e q u e s t

. T h i s v i o l a t i o n of t h e

F a m i l y C o d e r e q u i r e s s u p p r e s s i o n u n d e r A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 o f t h e C o d e o f

C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e u n d e r t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e without r e g a r d t o

w h e t h e r t h e m a g i s t r a t e m e r e l y s t a r t e d o r c o m p l e t e l y u s e d t h e

“ p r o c e d u r e

. ” 1

A s a l l u d e d t o a b o v e

, t h e C o u r t d o e s n o t a d e q u a t e l y a d d r e s s t h e

S t a t e ’ s p o s i t i o n t h a t a m a g i s t r a t e d o e s n o t “ u s e ” a p r o c e d u r e b y

m e r e l y i n i t i a t i n g i t

. T h e r e i s t e x t u a l s u p p o r t f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n i n the

operative sentence a t i s s u e i n F a m i l y C o d e § 5 1

. 0 9 5 ( f )

. 2 T h a t s t a t u t e

t a r g e t s t h e m a g i s t r a t e ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e h a s g i v e n a

s t a t e m e n t v o l u n t a r i l y

. T h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n n e c e s s a r i l y c o m e s a t t h e

e n d o f t h e “ p r o c e d u r e ” a t i s s u e

, p r o v i d i n g s u p p o r t f o r t h e S t a t e ’ s

a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s u s e o f t h e e n t i r e p r o c e d u r e n o t j u s t

1 See Gonzale s v. St ate , 67 S.W.3d 910, 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ( recogniz ing t hat

Article 38.23(a) provides the proper mechanism for excl uding e v i dence in violation of the

Family C ode) (c i ting Baptist Vie Le v. State , 9 9 3 S.W.2d 650, 656 n. 14 (Tex. Crim. App.

1999)) ; see als o Comer v. State

, 776 S.W. 2 d 191, 1 96 ( Tex. Crim. App. 19 86 ) ( holding that

evidence obtained in violation of the Family Code should have been suppressed pursuant to

Article 38.23(a)).

2 T ex. Fam . Co d e Ann. § 51

. 09 5(f).T orres Concurri ng

— 3

t h e b e g i n n i n g

. I n d e e d

, t h e s t a t u t e w a s o b v i o u s l y d e s i g n e d t o e x c l u d e

a j u v e n i l e ’ s i n v o l u n t a r y s t a t e m e n t a f t e r a m a g i s t r a t e d e t e r m i n e s t h a t

t h e s t a t e m e n t w a s i n v o l u n t a r y e v e n t h o u g h t h e s t a t u t e w a s w r i t t e n

m o r e b r o a d l y t h a n n e c e s s a r y t o a c c o m p l i s h t h a t g o a l

.

F u r t h e r

, t h i s v o l u n t a r i n e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s e e m s t o b e t h e textua l

f o c u s o f t h e s t a t u t e g i v e n t h a t o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e p r o c e d u r e c a n b e

s k i p p e d

. F o r e x a m p l e

, e v e n t h o u g h t h e m a g i s t r a t e m a y r e q u e s t t h a t

t h e recording o f t h e s t a t e m e n t b e r e t u r n e d t o h i m a f t e r i t i s m a d e

t h e r e i s n o requir eme nt t h a t t h e m a g i s t r a t e a c t u a l l y v i e w i t

. 3 A n d

,

u n d e r t h e t e x t o f t h e s t a t u t e

, the m a g i s t r a t e i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o s p e a k

w i t h t h e j u v e n i l e t o m a k e a v o l u n t a r i n e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n

. 4 T h e t e x t o f

§ 5 1

. 0 9 5 ( f ) o n l y r e q u i r e s t h e m a g i s t r a t e m a k e a v o l u n t a r i n e s s

d e t e r m i n a t i o n a n d r e d u c e i t t o w r i t i n g a f t e r t h e juvenile a n d h i s

r e c o r d e d s t a t e m e n t a r e b r o u g h t b a c k t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e

. 5 A g a i n

, t h i s

s u p p o r t s t h e S t a t e ’ s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e “ p r o c e d u r e ” r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e

t e x t o f t h e s t a t u t e n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e s a v o l u n t a r i n e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n

,

n o t m e r e l y a r e q u e s t t o s t a r t t h e p r o c e s s t o m a k e o n e

.

3 See id.

4 Id. ( “ The magistrate may then vie w the recording with the child or have the child view the

recording to enable the magistrate to determine whether the child ’ s state ments were given

voluntarily. ” ).

5 Id.T orres Concurri ng

— 4

I n t e r p r e t i n g t h e p h r a s e “ u s e s t h e p r o c e d u r e ” t o m e a n “ s t a r t i n g

t h e p r o c e d u r e ” h a s u n i n t e n d e d c o n s e q u e n c e s a s w e l l

. T h i s

interpreta tion m e a n s t h a t o n c e a m a g i s t r a t e m a k e s t h e r e q u e s t

, t h e

m a g i s t r a t e l o s e s d i s c r e t i o n d e s p i t e the d i s c r e t i o n a r y n a t u r e o f t h e

s t a t u t e

. A s t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s h e l d b e l o w

, “ [ o ] n c e t h e m a g i s t r a t e

d e c i d e s t o f o l l o w t h e p r o c e d u r e

, t h e s t a t u t e e x p l i c i t l y m a k e s

admissib ilit y c o n d i t i o n a l o n t h e m a g i s t r a t e ’ s f i n d i n g o f v o l u n t a r i n e s s

. ” 6

T h i s m e a n s t h a t a n o t h e r w i s e v o l u n t a r y s t a t e m e n t m u s t b e e x c l u d e d

e v e n i n s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e t h e m a g i s t r a t e c h a n g e s h i s o r h e r m i n d a b o u t

“ u s i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e

. ”

R a t h e r t h a n i n t e r p r e t a n a m b i g u o u s p h r a s e i n t h e s t a t u t e t o

p l a c e t h e b u r d e n o n t h e m a g i s t r a t e t o e n s u r e t h a t h i s o r h e r l a w f u l

o r d e r s a r e c a r r i e d o u t

, I would f o c u s i n s t e a d o n t h e r e a l b r e a k d o w n i n

p r o c e d u r e i n t h i s c a s e

. T h e r e i s n o q u e s t i o n that § 5 1

. 0 9 5 ( f ) required

t h e o f f i c e r s i n t h i s c a s e t o r e t u r n t h e juvenile a n d t h e r e c o r d i n g o f t h e

j u v e n i l e ’ s s t a t e m e n t t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e a f t e r t h e o f f i c e r s h a d t a k e n t h e

j u v e n i l e ’ s s t a t e m e n t

. T h i s v i o l a t i o n o f t h e F a m i l y C o d e c a n b e

a d d r e s s e d t h r o u g h resort t o a d i f f e r e n t F a m i l y C o d e p r o v i s i o n

.

6 Sta t e v . Torres , 639 S.W.3d 7 91, 799 (Tex. A pp

. — C orpus Christ i 2021).T orres Concurri ng

— 5

F a m i l y C o d e § 5 1

. 1 7 p r o v i d e s t h a t C h a p t e r 3 8 o f t h e C o d e o f

C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e a p p l i e s i n a j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g u n d e r t h i s t i t l e

. 7

W e h a v e h e l d t h a t A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 c a n a p p l y t o v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e F a m i l y

C o d e i n j u v e n i l e c a s e s w h e n t h e t e x t o f t h e s t a t u t e d o e s n o t p r o v i d e

a n i n d e p e n d e n t e x c l u s i o n a r y b a s i s

. 8 T h o u g h § 5 1

. 0 9 5 ( f ) p r o v i d e s a n

i n d e p e n d e n t b a s i s f o r e x c l u s i o n w h e n a m a g i s t r a t e “ u s e s t h e

p r o c e d u r e ” o u t l i n e d i n t h a t s e c t i o n

, i t does not p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r

e x c l u s i o n w h e n t h e m a g i s t r a t e d o e s n o t u s e t h e p r o c e d u r e

. U n d e r

t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y a p p l y

. A p p l y i n g

A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 i n t h i s c a s e j u s t i f i e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s o r d e r s u p p r e s s i n g

t h e j u v e n i l e ’ s s t a t e m e n t

. 9

W i t h t h e s e t h o u g h t s

, I c o n c u r i n t h e C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t

.

F i l e d : April 19, 2023

P u b l i s h

7 Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51. 17 (c)

.

8 Gonzales , 67 S.W. 3d at 9 1 2

- 1 3 ( rec ognizing tha t § 52.02(b) of the Family Code does not

contain an independent ex clusionary mechanism but that a stateme n t t aken in violation of §

52.02(b) c ould be excl uded under Article 38.23( a) if there is a ca usal connection between

the viol atio n and the statement).

9 Romero v. State , 800 S.W.2d 539, 543

- 44 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (a trial judge’s decision

regarding t h e s uppressi on of evidence will be upheld if correct on any theory of law

applicable to the case).