Vasque z’s brief list s five point s of error, but the f ifth point is s imply

a stateme nt that the 1 e rr or s in the c a se ha

rm e d h im a

nd that th e c a se mus t be re mand e d f or a ne w tri a l. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00307- CR

G uada lupe Va sque z , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 30300 48, H ONO RAB LE WILF ORD F LOW ERS, JUDGE PRESI DING

O P I N I O N A j ury convicted Guadalupe Vasque z of m urder , and he was sentenced to f ifty y ear s in prison. See Te x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 1 9. 02 (We st 2 00 3) . In th is a pp e a l, V a sq

ue z ra ise s f

our p oin ts of er ror, al l with respec t to the admission and consideration of his ex tra-judicia l confe ssion. 1 Although we hold that the trial court did not err by finding that Vasque z’s confession had be en voluntarily made, it wa s err or to r efuse Vasque z’s r equest to submit the issue of voluntariness to the jury . We reve rse the c onviction and re mand for a new tria l consistent with this opinion.2 BACK GR OUND Gar y J ackson w as found de ad in his home on J anuar y 5, 2003. He h ad b een shot twice in the c hest and onc e in the hea d, and a pla stic b ag h ad bee n place d over his hea d. J ackson was Va squez’s landlord and lived on the ot her side of t he duplex occupied by Vasque z and his wife Maria. D etec tive Ker

ry Scanlon briefly spoke with the couple outside of their home on the e vening of January

8, and they wer e later asked to c ome to the police station for a n interview. A t that time, Vasque z was alrea dy

a suspec t in light of reports by neig hbors t hat Vasquez and J ackson ha d argued loudly and a ledg er found in Jackson’s home indicating that Va squez owed Jackson sever al thousand dollars. Guada lupe and Maria Vasque z drove to the police station the following afte rnoon and w ere i n t e r v i e w e d s e p ar a t e l y. Be cause the voluntariness of V asquez’s conf ession is at issue, a deta iled descr iption of the ove r seve n hours of interr og ation leading up to the confession is helpful. After Vasque z and his wife arr ived at the police station, D etec tive Scanlon place d Vasque z alone in a small interview room. The r oom contained only a small table and sever al plastic chair s. A hidden over head c amer a
rec orded a ll activities in the room. The videotape of the i nterview indicates that Va squez was place d in t he ro om at

4:5 4 p .m. De te c tiv e Sc anlo n s oo n b e g an th e int e rv ie w b y a sk ingVa sq

ue z ab ou t hi s wher eabouts ove r the pa st weeke nd, his relationship with Jackson, and when he last saw Jackson. Over the course of the next hour, Scanlon took down Vasque z’s account on a computer a

nd produce d an af fidavit, which Vasquez signe d. I n the affidavit, Vasque z stated t hat he last saw J ackson outside of the duplex on the eveningof Friday , J anuar y 3 when he and his wife w ere g oing out to eat. He g ave a g ener al desc ri p t i o n o f what he and his wife did over the wee kend. Va squez stated that heThe State a cknowledg es in its brief that “it is rea sonable to sur mise that it is st andar d police 2 d ep ar t m en tp ro ce d

u re fo r a ci v i l i an v i s i t o r t o b e a cc o mp an i edb y an o ff i ce r w h en wa l k i n g t h ro u gh the building. I t is unli kely that visitors would be allowed to wa nder a round the police depar

tment without being a ccompa

nied by an off icer for se curity

rea sons.” 3 lear ned of J ackson’ s death when he returne d from the store on Sunday , J anuar y 5, to find police at th e d u p le x. Once Detec tive Scanlon took down Vasquez’s statement, he lef t the room to g o print it o ut. He tol d V a sq

ue z that th e do or

wa s not loc ke d, bu t tha t if he ne e de d to go to t he bathr oo m to jus t kn oc k. Sc anlo n th e n to ok Va sq ue z to the bathr oo m and

c an be se e n in

the vid e o e sc or

tin g him 2 ba c k to the int e rv ie w ro om and le a vin g . Va sq ue z wa s h and e d th e wr itt e n s ta te me nt a nd g ive n ti me to reviewit. Vasquez signe d the statemen t , an d S canlon notarized it and took a photogr aph of Vasque z. S canlon then le ft, saying that he would che ck on Va squez’s wife.

Vasque z wa s left alone in the interview room for a bout twelve minutes. Duringthat time, he ca

n be see n y awning , stretching , rubbing his ey es, and fidg eting
. When Scanlon returne d, he informe d Vasque z that his wife w ould be a while long er be cause o f “la ng uag e proble ms.” Scanlon t h e nmo v e d

h is c h a ir c lo s e to V a s qu e z, c r o w d in g h im in th e f ar c o r n e r o f th e in te r v ie w
room. Vasque z re mained seate d in this corner throug hout the interrog ation. Detec tive Eric De L os Santo s lat e r en te re d the ro om an d join e d the int e rr og a tio n. At thi s poin t, t he int e rr og a tio n b e c a me
so me wh a t mo re dir e c t. V a sq ue z wa s a sk e d a

bo ut gun s th a t he po sse sse d, wh e n he la st u se d th e m, and whe ther he would allow police to test them. He was a s k ed i n d et ai l about the interior of J ackson’ s home and whe ther Va squez’s fing erpr ints, hair, or tools would be found there . Vasque z
a dmi tte d th a t he ha d ta

ke n s om e tr ash b a g s f

ro m hi s jo b a

nd that he mig ht h a ve g ive n s ome to4

J ackson. The conver sation also focuse d on Vasque z’s employ ment at a f

unera l home. There was a leng thy discu s s i o n of how the he ads of bodies a re ba g g ed af

ter a utopsies. At times the office rs j o k e d w i t h e a c h o t h e r

t h a tV a s qu e z d i d

n o tw an tt o t a l k

a b o u tt h e b a g g i n g o f

t h e h e a d o na b o d y. Vasque z was also told that neighbor s had re ported arguments betwee n him and J ackson a nd that he
ow e d Jac ks on

se ve ra l th ou sand

do lla rs . Af te r a bo ut a n h our, the de te c tiv e s b e c a me e ve n mo re ins ist e nt:
S c an l o n : I t h i n k

yo uh a v e a

s t o r y t o t e l l , yo un e e d

t o s t artt e l l i n g t h e s t o r

y. V a s qu e z : I d o n ’ th a v e a

s t o r y. Scanlon: Ithink y ou do. Ithink y ou need to tell us y our side of w hat happe ned. Vasque z: My

side of what happene d? Scanlon: I f y ou want us to know y our side of what happene d, y ou’re the only one wh o c an te ll u s th a t. Vasque z was then informed that owing mone y to J ackson w as “the least of his problems.” D etec tive De L os Santo s ask e d, “ wh a t hap pe ne d— se ri ou sly no w— y ou ’v e be e n play ing g a me s this wh ole tim e . . . what happe ned? ” In response to a direc t question, Vasquez denied killing Jackson.

At 7:1 8 p.m. , a ft e r h e ha d a g re e d to g o to his ho me wi th t he de te c tiv e s to e xami ne his .3 8 r e vo lve r, Va sq

ue z a sk e d, “ wh e re ’s my wi fe ? ” He wa s inf or me d th a t sh e wa s st ill sp e a kin g wi th other de tectives. As the de tectives g ot up from their c hairs, Va squez said, “ I need to g et my wife.” He wa s told by Detec tive De L os Santos that the detectives wer e going in their own car a nd that he should wait in the interview room. Five minutes later, Scanlon returne d. Vasque z asked if his wife
wa s r e a dy . Sc anlo n r e pli e d, “ Idid n’ t e ve n n oti c e .” Af

te r s e tti ngup his com pu ter , Sca nlo n to ldVasque z st ated, “ L et’s g o smoke a c iga rette . . . . I

think I have a

rig ht to that.” 3 5 Va sq ue z, “I hate to se e y ou

tr y to s tic k to thi s st or

y ,” and the n c on tin

ue d p re ssi ngVa sq

ue z to a dmi t his g uilt. The int err og ation continued along these lines for another half hour unt il Vasquez asked to g o o ut t o s mok e a

c ig are tte
. As the y le ft the int e rv ie w ro om, Va sq ue z ag a in a sk e d, “ wh e re ’s my 3 wife? ” No r esponse f

rom the dete ctives ca

n be hea rd on the videota

pe. After they returne d from the c iga

rette br eak, Vasquez was of fer ed water, whic h he d e c l i n e d
. A t8 : 1 0 p . m . V a s qu e z a s k e d S c an l o n , “ I s m y w i f

e s t i l l i n t h e b u i l d i n g . . . c an I s e e h e r ?” Scanlon re plied that Vasque z could but asked Vasque z to wait a second wh i l e S ca n l o n continued
wo rk ingon

his c omp ute r. Sc anlo n th e n p ro c e e de d to dis c us s c omp ute rs un til an o ff ic e r a rr ive d to take ha ir and sa liv a sampl e s fr om Va sq

ue z. Sho rt ly

the re a ft e r, Va sq

ue z co ns e nte d to a

se arc h o f h is
car . Whe n h e as ked to ac company the offic ers in sea

rchinghis car, D e L os Santos stated,

“ Te c hn ic a lly , y ou

c an’ t g o o ut, I me an, we ’d lik e to d o it ours e lve s. ” Th e de te c tiv e s th e n g ot u p to leave . As they

wer e lea ving, V asquez ag ain aske d about his wife:
Va sq ue z: Whe re ’s my

wi fe a t? Scanlon: She’s rig ht over ther e. Vasque z: I ’d like to talk to her. Vasque z’s request was ignor ed, and the detectives left t he room. Upon S canlon’ s return, V asquez ag ain aske d, “so where’ s my wife at? ” Scanlon t old Vasque z that she was “out ther e” a nd that he would probably

bring h er in a

minute and let the two wa it togethe r. He then re sumed pressing Va sq ue z to a dmi t to the mur de r e xpla ini ng , “ I wi ll no t be a ble to h e lp you

la te r. . . . I ’m

tr y ingto6

be on y our side. . .
. I ’m try ing to help every body out.” Vasque z continued asking about his wife but was told that she was still talking to the detectives. Scanlon i nformed Vasquez that “she’ s g ot a lot to say ” and that she had c hang ed her story . At 8:41 p.m., Vasquez was g iven some water. Soon afte r, he w as told that the pol ice had obtained a war rant to sea rch his house, “ based on the evidenc e.” T h e in t erro gat i o n co n t i n u ed i n m u ch t h e sa m e wa y o v er t h e co u rs e of t h e ev en i n g. The off icer s revisited many

of the same are as o f i nquiry , confr onted Vasque z with allege d inconsistencies be tween his stateme nts and fac ts a lrea dy known to the police, and even a sserted that Vasque z’s wife had he lped him commit the murder. At 9:31 p.m
. , Va s quez was allowe d to use a ph on e to c a ll his wi fe
. Va sq ue z c a lle d h is h ome bu t th e re wa s n o a ns we r, and

De te c tiv e Sc anlo n to ld Vasque z that no one would answer at the house. On seve ral oc casions Va squez asked to leave . Eac h time, the d et ec tives either ignor ed hi s re q u es t s and cha ng ed the subjec t or g ave a n off- putting excuse to dela y Vasque z. At 9:23 p.m., Vasquez asked if he could go hom e. Detec tive Scanlon re plied that he could g o home but that he could not g o inside beca use the police wer e sear ching the house. “ Right now, a ll we ca n do is w a it
. Wh e nth e y

a d v is e u s , I ’ ll le t yo ukn o w . ” A t 9 :4 5 p . m. , V a s qu e z t o ld D e te c ti v e D e L os Santos that he was r eady

to go:
De L os Santos: What’s the word L upe? Vasque z: Well, I ’m rea dy to go now
. De L os Santos: You re ady to go now ? Vasque z: Oh y eah. De L os Santos: You want to g o now?7

Vasque z: Oh y eah. De L os Santos: You don’t wa nt to hang around no more ? Va s qu ez : W el l , Igo t t a ge tu p ea rl y i nt h e m o rn i n g. De L os Santos: Ok. I

talked to y our wife
. . . . At the end of

this ex chang e, De tective De L os Santos sat down in one cha ir and put his fee t up on
ano the r— e ff

e c tiv e ly blo c kin g the do or

—a nd pr oc e e de d to a sk

Va sq ue z ab ou t po ssi ble inconsistencies be tween his story and that of his w ife. Vasque z re mained seate d in the corne r of the
ro om a nd c on tin ue d to ans we r q

ue sti on s. Vasque z inqui red a

b o u t t h e s t at us of his truck at 10:14 p.m. Dete ctive De L os Santos replied that he did not know
. When V asquez complained about being interrog ated, De tective De L os Santos replied, “Y ou don’t have to be her e, y ou know, y ou are fre e to leave any time y ou want to . . . but, I g uess my conce rn would be
. . . I ’m not, you know, I ’m not g oing to be at ar ound the bush with y ou, I ’m g o i n g t o ask y ou straig ht up—did y ou kill Gary ? ” Va squez denied killing J ackson, a

nd the interrog ation continued. At 1 0 : 2 9 p . m . , Vasquez announced that it was “ time to go now.” He wa s asked
se ve ra l mo re tim e s w he the r he ha d an y thi ng e lse to say . De te c tiv e Sc anlo n the n g a ve Va sq ue z his business car d and we nt to retrieve Vasque z’s car ke y s. Standing by the open door , Detec tive De L os Santos continued to press Va squez about his involvement in the murder. The n Detec tive Scanlon
a sk e d th e tw o to wa it a

se c on d. Va sq

ue z a g re e d an d re tur

ne d to his sea

t in the fa r c or ne r. He tol d Detec tive De L os Santos that he neede d to c all his w ife. Detec tive De L os Santos replied that he w as sure she was a lrig ht and continued to question Va squez. Detec tive Scanlon returne d with a bagand8

a s k e d V a s qu e z t o p u th i s b o o t s i ni t
. V a s qu e z c o mp l i e d
. D e t e c t i v e S c an l o n t o o k t h e b o o t s a w a y,
and Va sq ue z as ke d D e te c tiv e De L os Santo s: Vasque z: How am I supposed to leave ? How long are y ou g oing to ke ep the bo ots ? De L os Santos: I ’m telling you man, we are g oing to f ind it. W e ar e g oing to f

ind it. I f there ’s an e x planation, y ou need to tell me. Va sq ue z: Ho w a

m I su pp os e d to wo rk

wi tho ut my

bo ots ? De L os Santo s: Hm m? You do n’ t ha ve any oth e r s ho e s? Va sq ue z: Ihave oth e r w or k b oo ts. De L os Santos: But that’s not what we are talking about here
. I s, is that rea lly what c o n c e r n s y o u is h o w y o u g o in g to w o r k w it h o u t th o s e s h o e s ?. . . . Idon’t think that’s t he only thing y ou are worry ing a bout. Idoubt that’s y our main worr

y rig ht now.
. . . Be cause we’ re g oing to f ind it man. Va sq ue z: Whe re are the y g oin g to t a ke my

bo ots ? De L os Santos: Help y ourself ma n. Make your self f

eel be tter . . . . Vasque z: And they ’re in my house rig ht now.
Detec tiv e D e L o s Sa

n to s th e n to ld V a s qu e z a g a in th a t h e w a s f r e e to le a v e ; h is c ar k e y s had bee n pla c e d on the ta

ble in fr on t of him
. Ho we ve r, Va sq ue z wa s a lso tol d that he c ou ld no t g o h ome un til the police f

in is h e d s e ar c h in g h is h o u s e . V a s qu e z r e ma in e d s e a te d w it h o u t h is b o o ts an d

the detec tives continued to interrog ate him with the door ope n.

At 11:36 p.m., Vasquez asked to leave one f inal time:See New Re vised Ve l as q u ez Spanish and Eng lish Dictionary 682 (1985) ( “ Y

a voy , Iam 4 g oing, or Iam g oing pr esently .”). See id . at 240 ( de

sc alz o , bare footed or shoe less). 5 9 V a s qu e z : Y a

m e v o y ? ( Ia m g o i n g n o w ?) 4 De L os Santos: That’s up to y ou. That’s up to y ou. Vasque z: Soy

desca lzo. (I am shoeless.) 5 De L os Santos: Desc alzo man, y ou know what . . . . Va sq ue z: Th a t’ s th e le a st o f my wo rr ie s. De L os Santo s: Th a t’ s th e le a st o f your w or ri e s. . . un le ss t

he re are oth e r w or

ri e s. Vasque z: That’s a ll I have ma n. De L os Santos: Hey brother, I ’m not holding y o u b ac k
. . . but does it bother y ou

that Idon’t believe y ou?
De te c tiv e De L os Santo s the n co nti nu e d in his att e mpt to pe rs ua de Va sq ue z to t e ll the tr

uth wh ile Va sq ue z re ma ine d s e a te d in

his c ha ir in t he c or ne r o f t he ro om. Th e c on ve rs ation le a din g up to V a sq ue z’s c on fe ssi on

tur ne d to his pr ob le ms w ith depre ssion. Vasquez told the detectives that he had take n medication for depre ssion and that he had been treate d by a neurolog ist. He said that his doctor stopped pre scribing the medication and that he ha d b e e n ta

kin g so me of

his wi fe ’s me dic a tio n. He informe d the de te c tiv e s th a t he a lmo st committed suic ide sever al times a nd admitted that he had pr oblems controlling his a ng er w ithout the medication. He descr ibed his fee lings a s “worse than ang er.” Vasquez t wi ce asked to take a
c ig are tte br e a k d

ur ingthi s c on ve rs a tio n. He fi rs t a g re ed to wait f ive min ute s. I n r e sp on se to h is second r equest, Va squez was told he could have a ci garette if he told the truth. Duringthis final10

conver sation, the detec tives repe atedly told Va squez that the y wanted to he lp him but could not do any thing f or him unless he told the truth about the murder. When a sked whether he wa nted to hurt any one else , Vasque z indi cate d that he wa nted to hurt him s elf. The detec tives then discussed Vasque z’s need for

medication:
Scanlon: Yo u need me dication, We can g et y ou some medication. Tell us

what happe ned . . . if y ou tell us t he truth of what happene d, y ou know, we’ r e g o n n a

d o e v e r y th in g w e c anto g e t yo uth e h e lp y ou need. De L os Santos: We can’ t help y ou if y ou don’t help y ourself. Vasque z: Iknow.
After sever al more minutes of pr essing Vasque z t o t ell him what happene d, Detec tive Scanlon
rea ched out his ha n d t o Va s quez. Vasquez held Scanlon’s ha nd and said, “ I t happene d.” Af ter
ans we ri nga

c ou ple qu e sti on s a

bo ut ho w he we nt i ns ide Jac ks on ’s ho me a nd re pe a tin g that he “ did it, ” Va sq ue z ag a in t oo k Sc anlo n’ s h and
. S canlo n r e a ssu re d V a sq ue z, “ I ’m on y our s ide
. . . I

sti ll am y our fr iend. I

still like y ou.” Vasquez wiped tea rs from his ey es, and the y

all g ot up for Va squez to h a ve a c ig are tte . D e te c tiv e Sc anlo n te sti fi e d at tr ia l th a t th ey wen t for a c ig are tte “ be c a

us e [Vasquez] was c rying a

nd I wanted to rew ard him for making the admission.” Scanlon later returne d to the interview room with V asquez, who g ave a full acc ount of the murder . Scanlon first informe d Va sq ue z of his Miranda rig hts at 12: 27 a.m. Vasque z was later t aken out to J ackson’ s home wher e he re enac ted the murde r.

Prior to trial, Vasquez filed a motion to s uppress his confe ssion. A hear ing w as conducte d in which the dist ri ct co u rt hear d testimony from De tective Sca

nlon and watc hed the11

videotape of

the interrog ation. The district c ourt overr uled the motion and the conf ession, including the e nti re vid e ota

pe d in te rr og a tio n, wa s a dmi tte d at tr ia l.

DI SCU SSIO N Va sq ue z ra ise s f

our po int s o f e rr or

wi th r e g ard

to t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ha

nd lin g of his confe ss ion: the district court (1) did not prope rly enter finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law a s
re qu ir e d b y

art ic le 38 .2 2, se c tio n 6 of the c od e of

c ri min a l pr oc e dure; (2) e rr e d b y ov e rr uli nghis motion to s uppress the c onfession bec ause his conf ession was not voluntarily made; (3) err ed by
ov e rr uli nghis mot io n to s up pr e ss t he c on fe ssi on

be c a us e Va sq ue z did no t vo lun tari ly

wa ive his rig hts as require d by ar t i cle 38.22, se ction 2 of the c ode of c riminal proce dure; a nd (4) e rre d by f a i l i n g t o s u

b m i tt h e i s s u e o f

t h e v o l u n t ar i n e s s o f

V a s qu e z ’ s c o n f

e s s i o nt o t h e j u r

y.
F ind ings of

F act and Conclusion s of L aw I nh i s fi rs t p o i n t o f erro r, Va s qu ez co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt fa i l edt o en t er fi n d i n gs
as re quired by

article 38.22, section 6, of the code of criminal proce dure. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. Ann. ar t. 38.22, § 6 (West 2005). When the vol untariness of a st atement is challeng ed, a tr ial court is require d to make f

indings with re g ard to its deter mination. Id .; Ur ias v . S

tat e , 155 S.W .3d 141, 14 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ). Suc h fi nd ing s are mand a tor y e ve n wh e n the re is no ob je c tio n at tr ia l. Id . Howeve r, a trial court will be found to ha ve complied with article 38.22, section 6, if the c ourt dictates its finding s and conc lusions to t he cour t re p o rt er and those finding s are made pa rt of the
a p p e ll ate recor d. Se e Mu rp hy v . S tat e , 1 12 S.W. 3d

59 2, 60 1- 02 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ); Parr v. Sta te , 6 58 S.W. 2d

62 0, 62 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 83 ). “ [F ]ind ing s n e e d n ot be ma de wi th m inute12

specific ity

as to ever y alleg ed and hy

pothetical possibili ty for phy sical or mental c oerc ion, but need only be suff icient to provide the a

ppellate c ourt and the parties with a basis upon which to re view the trial cour

t’s ap p l i ca t i o n of the lawto the fac ts.” Nic ho ls v . S tat e , 8 1 0 S. W. 2 d

8 2 9 , 8 3 1 ( T e x. App.—Dallas, 1991, pe t. ref’ d).

Her e, the district cour

t rea d its findings into the rec ord:
Th e Court fi nd s th a t the a c c us e d, Gu a da lup e Va sq ue z, v olu nta ri ly we nt t o th e Au sti n Police Depa

rtment for a

n interview, he and his wife. T he Court is capa ble of finding that based upon the evidenc e the Court hea rd at the he aring . The Court finds that the de fe nd ant d

ur inghis le ng thy

se ssi on in t he int e rv ie w r oo m a

pp e are d to be a le rt

a t a ll times. He wa s g iven opportunities to take brea ks, breaks upon his request. F rom the Court’s observations in vi ewingthe videotape , the door to the interview room wa s never locked. I n fac t, as t he lawy ers have indicate d, the door wa s opened at a point in time during the interview of the accused. The defenda nt was tol d on at least two occa sions that he was fr ee to lea ve if he wished to le ave. But he didn’t exercise that desire if he had one . He ne ver attempted to leave and the Court finds that ther e we re no restric tions or any

actions that the Court was able to vie w that would prohibit or interfe re with an opportunit y to leave the interviewroom. His car key s were made a va ila ble to h im. T h e C o u rt fi n d s t h at t h e de fe n d an tfr ee l y an d v o l u n t ar i l y

wa i v edh i s ri gh t s , al t h o u gh the Court a ls o f

in d s , a s I s a id e ar li e r , th is w a s a n o n c u s to d ia l in te r r o g a ti o n an d

the motion to s uppress is denied.
The district cour

t’s finding s make spec ific re fe re nce to f acts a dduced thr oug h testimony at the hear ing a nd events on the videotape . We hold that these finding s were proper ly rea d into the rec ord and are sufficie ntly detailed to comply with the require ments of ar ticle 38.22, sec tion 6. See M urphy , 11 2 S. W.3 d at 60 1- 02 ; Nic ho ls , 810 S.W .2d at 831. Acc ording ly , we ove rrule V asquez’s first point of er ror.13

Vo lunt ar ine ss I n his second and third issues, Va squez contends that the dis t ri ct court erre d by
a dmi tti nghis c on fe ssi on

be c a us e bo th h is c on fe ssi on

and his wa ive r o f h is Miranda rig hts w ere the result of police coerc ion, and therefor e were not voluntarily made. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn.
art . 3 8. 22 ; Blackburn v . Alabama , 3 61 U. S. 1 99 , 2 10 (1 96 0)
. I n re vie wi nga ru lin g on a mot ion to
s u p p re s s , we g ive almost total defer ence to the trial court’ s determination of historica l fac ts. S ee Ba le nti ne v . S

tat e , 71 S.W.3 d 7 63 , 7 68 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ); Ga rc ia v . S tat e , 15 S.W .3d 533, 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We review de novo mix ed questions of lawand fa ct that do not turn on an evaluation of cre dibi l i t y and deme anor. Gu zm an v . S

tat e , 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Ha y es v . S tat e , 132 S.W .3d 147, 151 (Tex. A pp.—Austin 2004, no pe t.). The district cour t is the sole fac t-finder

at a Jack son v. De nno hear ing and may choose to be lieve or disbelieve any or all of the witnesse s’ testimony
. S e l l s v . Stat e , 121 S.W .3d 748, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); De wbe rry

v . S tat e , 4 S.W .3d 735, 747-48 (Tex
. Crim. App. 1999). W e ar e not at liberty to disturb any finding that is supported by the re cord. Se lls , 121 S.W .3d at 767. Vasque z asserts that he conf essed to Jackson’s murder o n l y after his will was overbor ne by more than seven hours of “sophisticated phy sical and mental coer cion.” A conf ession is involuntary or coer ced if the totality

of the c ircumstance s demonstrates that the c onfessor did not make the de cision to confe ss of hi s own free will. Gr e e n v . S tat e , 9 34 S.W. 2d

92 , 9 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p . 1 9 9 6 ) ( ci t i n g Ar izo na v . F ulm ina nte , 4 99 U. S. 279 , 285 -8 6 ( 19 91 )) ; Sc ott v . S tat e , 165 S.W .27, 43 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. dism’d). We de termine whe ther a confe ssion was voluntary under the due pr ocess c lause of the Four teenth Amendment by

examining the totality

of the c ircumstance s14

surrounding its acquisition. Ar ms tro ng v . S tat e , 71 8 S.W. 2d 68 6, 69 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 85 ); Sc ott , 165 S.W .3d at 43.

Va sq ue z po int s to a

numbe r o f f

a c tor s in the int e rr og a tio n th a t he a lle g e s a c te d in combination to rende r his confe ssion involunt ary . He f irst points t o the duration of the interrog ation. Our r e vie w o f t

he re c or d s ho ws that V a sq ue z wa s su

bje c te d to ov er se ve n h ours of inc re a sin g ly
coer cive inter

rog ation befor e admitting his guilt shortly afte r midnight. Statements we re also made by the de te c tiv e s th a t c ou ld h a ve be e n in te rp re te d to ind ic a te that the int e rr og a tio n w ou ld n ot c e a se until Vasquez confesse d. For example, Detec tive De L os Santos told Vasquez that his s tory was inconsistent w ith what they had bee n told by

others and the n stated, “Y ou know, we a re not g oing to g o a wa y . We are goingto k e e p p us hin g and pu sh ingand

pu sh ingand

pu sh ing , O k. ” Tw e nty minutes before making his first admission, Detective De L os Santos told Vasque z, “I ’ve g ot nothing but time o n my

hands.” The re w ere also long pauses in the inter rog ation in which the dete ctives
we re pr e se nt, bu t r e ma ine d s ile nt, or wh e re Va sq

ue z was left a lon e in t

he c los e d in te rv ie w r oo m. Va s q u ez al s o notes that he wa s isolated from his wife, a nd that the offic ers use d a var iety of techniques to ke ep him from leaving. As discussed i n our sum mary of the interr og ation, the re cord is replete w ith inst ance s in which clea r re quests by

Vasque z to l eave or see his wife we re ig nored by the of fi c e rs . Vasque z also alleg es that the de tective s to o k a d v a nta g e o f his mental illness and made improper pr omises. A confe ssion is i nvalid if it was induced by a promise that was “ positive, made
or sanc tioned by

someone in authority , and of suc h an influential nature that it would ca use aI t is important to note that it is irrele vant whether the statement made was a ctually true or 6 false “ beca

use it is the methods used t o extract an invol untary confe ssion that offe nd constitutional principles.” State v. Terrazas , 4 S.W. 3d 72 0, 72 3- 24 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); se e als o Martinez v. Sta te , 127 S.W .3d 792, 794-95 (Te x . Crim. App. 2004). We focus only on the nature of the promise. See M artinez , 127 S.W .3d at 794-95. 15 defe ndant to speak untruthf ully .” Ma rti ne

z v . S tat e , 127 S.W .3d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). 6 A consistent theme use d in the interrog ation involved the offic ers va g uely promising to “he lp” Vasque z but s tating that Vasquez had to first “he lp himself” by telling the truth. Our revie w of the vid e ota pe a lso re ve a ls two ins tanc e s w hic h c ou ld p os sib ly be int e rp re te d a s mo re sp e c if ic pr omi se s, bo th oc c ur

ri ng wi thi n ha lf an h our o f V a sq ue z’s fi rs t a dmi ssi on . O n o ne oc c a sio n V a sq ue z wa s to ld that he could ha

ve a c iga rette if he “told the truth.” Soon afte r, De tective Scanlon told Vasquez, “we can g et y ou s o m e m ed i cation. Tell us what happene d . . . . [I ]f y ou tell us the truth of what happene d, y ou know, we’re gonna do ever y thing we can to g et y ou the help y ou need.” Detec tive De L os Santo s a dd e d, “ we c an’ t he lp you if y ou do n’ t he lp y

ours e lf .” Ho we ve r, the de te c tiv e s’ vag ue p ro m i s es of “he lp,” or the pr omise of cig are ttes, were not of such an inf luential nature that they would have c aused V asquez to speak untruthfully
. See M artinez , 127 S.W .3d at 794. Al t h o u gh a promise of

neede d medication would be much more c ompelling, it is unclea r fr om our examination of the videota

pe that a promise of assisting V asquez in obtaining me dication was ma de or that such
a promise actua lly

induced the c onfession. Se e id . T he de te c tiv e s o nly me nti on e d th a t th e y

c ou ld assist Vasquez in obtaining medic ation once in t h e cour se of the se ven-hour interrog ation during wh ic h th e de te c tiv e s a

pp e a le d to Va sq

ue z in c ountl e ss o the r w ay s. W e a g r e e t h a t V a s qu e z w a s a v u l n e r a b l e i n d i v i d

u a l w h o w a s s u

b j e c t e d t o a l e n g t h y,
co er ci v e, an d

s u s t ai n edi n t er r o gat i o nb y t wo t ra i n edh o m i ci d e d et ec t i v es b en to no b t ai n i n g aWe stress that there is nothing inhere ntly inappropria

te about the c oerc i v e n at u re o f the 7 police questioning in this case . Courts have long acknowledg ed the leg itimate role of interrog ation in t he inv e sti g a tio n o f c ri me . “Wit ho ut suc h inve sti g a tio n, tho se wh o w e re inn oc e nt m ig ht b e fa lse ly ac cu s ed , t h o s e w h o we re gu i l t y m i gh twh o l l y

es cap e p ro s ec u t i o n , an d m an y cr i m es w o u l d

go unsolved. I n short, the sec urity of all would be diminished.” Sh ne c k lot h v . B us tam on te , 4 12 U. S. 21 8 , 226 (1973). B y

permitting c oerc ive interrog ation, but barringthe use of involuntar y confe ssions, “the Constit ution requires the sacr ifice of neither se curity

nor liberty .” Id
. 16 confe ssion. But the dete ctives’ suc cess in per suading Vasque z to co nfess doe s not indicate that Va sq ue z’s de c isi on

wa s n ot m a de of

his ow n f re e wi ll. Se e Gr e e n v . S

tat e , 9 34 S.W. 2d

a t 99 ; Sc ott , 7 165 S.W .3d at 43. Vasque z was repe ate d l y told that he could leave , the door to the interr og ation room was open, and he was even given his car key s. Wit h ever y opportunity to end the inter rog ation, Vasque z chose to return to his seat and continue spe aking w i t h t h e d etectives. Although the de te c tiv e s c e rt a inl y

ma de it i nc on ve nient fo r V a sq ue z to e nd

the int e rr og a tio n b y

takin g his bo ots and isolating him from his wife, viewingthe total i t y of the c ircumstance s, we do not find that the district court er

red in finding that Vasque z’s confession wa s voluntarily made. F or the same rea sons that the district court prope rly found Va squez’s statement to be voluntarily made, the district c ourt’s finding that Vasque z freely and voluntarily

waived his righ t s i s al so supported by the re cord. Acc ording ly , we ove rrule V asquez’s sec ond and third points of err or.
Ins tr uc ti on o n Vo lunt ar ine ss

I n his fourth point of err or, Va squez contends that the district cour t erre d by failing to su b mi t th e is s u e o f v o lu

n ta r in e s s to th e ju

r y . A rti c le 3 8
. 2 2 , s e c ti o n 6 , o f th e c o d e o f cr iminal proce dure se ts forth a two-ste p proce dure for dete rmining voluntar iness. I t first require s that the trialT h e d i s tri ct co u rt ci t edt wo o p i n i o n s fr o m t h e co u rt o f cr i m i n al ap p ea l s t o j u s t i fy i t s ru l i n g, 8 Me nd oz a v . S tat e , 88 S.W .3d 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) and Mu niz v . S tat e , 8 5 1 S. W. 2 d

2 3 8 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1993). 17 court make an independe nt finding in the a bsence of the jury

on the voluntariness of a confe ssion. Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt . 3 8. 22 , § 6. I f the tr ia l c ourt fi nd s th a t th e c on fe ssi on

wa s v olu nta ri ly made, the statute states that the issue may then be submitted to the jury , and t h e j ury must be instructed that it shall not consider the c onfession unless it be lieves bey ond a rea sonable doubt that the co n fe s s i o n wa s voluntarily made. Id . Vasque z allege s that he wa s entitled to a statutory instruction on voluntariness bec ause ( 1) the e vidence raised the issue reg arding the voluntariness of the conf ession and (2) trial counsel pr operly reque sted an instruction on the issue. The district c ourt denied the r equeste d instruct i on afte r the State a rg ued that Va squez was only entitled to an ins tr uc tio n if the re wa s a fact ual di sp ute re g a rd ingthe e ve nts of

the int e rr og a tio n. Th e State 8 advanc es the same argument on appea l. We disag ree . As we e x plain below, (1) article 38.22,
se c tio n 6 , is a

un iqu e inq

uir y that do e s n ot r e qu ir e di sp ut ed fac ts t o “ ra ise an is su e ” a s to voluntariness, and ( 2) there is some e vidence that Vasque z’s confession wa s not voluntarily made. Confession l

aw The c ode of c riminal proce dure contains specific provisions gove rning the admission and conside ration of confe ssions. Article 38.21 contains a blanket prohibition on the admission of involuntary

confe ssions. See Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt . 3 8. 21 . A rt ic le 38 .2 2 co nta ins a detail ed s et o f proce dures g overningthe use of w ritten and ora l statements as evide nce. Id . a rt
.18

38.22. For

example, article 38.22 specific ally incorporates the Miranda war ning r equire ments and place s limi tations on the use of oral stateme nts that are not e lectronic ally rec orded. Se e id . art. 38.22, §§ 2, 3. Article 3 8
. 2 2 , s ection 6, outl ines the proc edure for de termining whether a stateme nt was voluntarily

made. A de fenda

nt is first entitled to a hear ing outside the presence of t he jury in which the trial cour

t must m ake a

n independe nt finding on voluntar iness. Se e id . art. 38.22, § 6. I f the trial court de termines that the state ment was voluntarily made, se ction 6 then allows the issue to be
s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y: Upon the finding by

the judg e as a

matter of la

w and f ac t that the statement wa s voluntarily

made, e vidence perta ining to such mat t er m ay be submitted to the jury and it shall be instructed that unless the jury believes be y ond a re asonable doubt that the statement wa s voluntarily made, the jury shall not consider such statement for a ny purpose nor

any evidenc e obtained a s a re sult thereof.
Id
. Ar t i cl e 3 8
. 2 2 , s ec t i o n7 , al s o p ro v i d es , “W h en t h e i s s u e i s ra i s ed b y t h e e v i d en ce , t h e t ri al j u d ge
s h al l ap propriate ly

instruct the jury , g ener ally , on the law pe rtaining to such statement.” Id . a rt
. 38.22, § 7. A def

endant is not entitled to an ins truction on the voluntariness of a statement in eve ry
case . The e vidence admit t ed at trial must, in fact, ra ise a que stion as to its voluntariness. Id . a rt
. 38 .2 2, § 6 ; Terrazas, 4 S. W.3 d at 72 4; He rn an de z v . S tat e , 819 S.W .2d 806, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 91 ). “ Ra isi ng an issu e a s to the vo lun tari ne ss of a c on fe ssi on

me ans that some e videnc e must be prese nted to the jury

that the conf

ession was not g iven voluntarily .” Hernande z , 819 S.W .2d at 812 (empha sis added). Co m mentators Dix and Dawson have for mulated the standa

rd as suc h: “[T] he application of the leg al standar d for voluntariness to a g ree d fac ts should be a jury issue, if tho se fa c ts
are ones fr om which a r easona ble j ury could conclude t hat t he st atement at issue was involuntary .”De fi nin g “ so me e vid e nc e ” of inv olu nta ri ne ss in ter

ms of wh e the r a

re a so na ble jur y c ou ld 9 conclude the conf

ession was involuntary

is consistent with use of t h e term in the context of competenc e to stand trial. In deter mining whether a

defe ndant is entitled to a compete ncy hear ing befor e a jur

y , the cour

t of criminal appe als has held t h at “s o m e evidence” of incompetenc e is “a quantity more than none or a sc intill a, that rat i o n ally may lead to a c onclusion of incompetenc e.” Alc ott v . S tat e , 5 1 S
. W
. 3 d

5 9 6 , 6 0 0 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 1 ) ( qu o t i n g Sis c o v . S tat e , 599 S.W .2d 607, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)). 19 41 Geor g e E. Dix & Robe rt O. Da wson, Te x as Prac tic e : C

rim ina l P ra c tic e an d P ro c e du re § 13.393 at 219 (2nd e d. 2001) (he rea fter D ix and Da wson). 9 The c ourt of cr iminal appeals di s cu s s ed what ty pe of e vidence raises a

question of voluntariness in Terrazas
. See 4 S.W .3d at 727. L inking the standard for an instruction w ith the standard f or shifting the burden on the S tate to prove voluntariness at a pr etrial he aring , the cour t of crimin al appea ls focused on the nature of the e vidence
. Se e id . at 72 6- 27 . T he c ourt po int e d to prac tices it de scribed as “inher ently coer cive” such as leng thy interrog ation, threats of violence, a nd detention i ncommunicado without advice of counsel or fr iends. Se e id . T he Un ite d St a te s Su pr e me Court ha s als o id e nti fi e d a va ri e ty of fa c tor s r a isi ngthe iss ue of vo lun tari ne ss i nc lud ing : th e y ou th of the a ccuse d, his lack of e ducation, his low intellige nce, the absenc e of Mi randa war nings, the repe ated a

nd prolong ed nat u re o f t h e questioni ng , and the use of phy sical punishment. See Sh ne c k lot h v . B us tam on te , 412 U.S. 218, 226 (1973). These fa ctors ar e not exclusive, and we look at the totality

of the c ircumstance s. Se e id . Moreove r, the de fenda nt need n o t testify

or ca ll any witnes ses for the issue of voluntariness to be r aised by the evidenc e. Mu niz

v . S tat e , 851 S.W .2d 238, 255 n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The issue m ay be ra ised throug h cross-e x amination or by evidenc e introduce d by

the State. Se e id
.20

Factual di

spute not required The district cour

t d enied Vasquez an instruction based on the State’s incorr ect argument, and other case law, sug g esting that a def endant is only

entitled to an instruction on voluntariness if the deter

mination r equire s the resolution of disputed fac ts. This misinterpre tation of the law is quite understanda ble in lig ht of the “conside rable confusion [in the case la w] between the standar d for jury

submissi on of voluntariness unde r ar ticle 38.22 and that f

or submission of an exclusionary

rule issue unde r ar

ticle 38.23.” Dix and Dawson § 13.393 at 2 1 9
. Ar t i cle 38.23(a) prohibits the admission of illega lly obtained evidenc e and provides that the issue be submitted to the jury
. See Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt . 3 8. 23 (a ). Th e c a se law has li mi ted thi s p ro vis ion to require an ins t ru ct i o n “o nly if there is a fac tual dispute about how the e vidence was obtaine d.” Ga rza v . S

tat e , 1 26 S.W. 3d

79 , 8 5 ( Te x. Cr im . App . 2 00 4) ; se e J or da n v . S tat e , 562 S.W .2d 472, 472-73 (Te x . Crim. App. 1978). I n deter mining whe ther e vidence was illeg ally obtained, the
a pp lic a tio n o f t

he law i s le ft

to t he c ourt and on ly the re so lut ion

of c on te ste d f

a c ts i s sub mi tte d to the jury
. Se e Ga rza v . S

tat e , 126 S.W. 3d

a t 85 ; Jordan , 56 2 S. W.2 d at 47 3; Lee , 70 S.W .2d at 187. Although an i nvoluntary confe ssion is also illega lly obtained, se e Blac k

bu rn , 361 U.S. at 210, the admission of statements is gove rned by article s 38.21 and 38.22, not article 38.23. Severa l case s from the court of criminal appea ls, inc luding one cited by the district court, ap p ea r t o require disputed fac ts in discussing whethe r a de fenda nt is entitl ed to submit the issue of the voluntariness of his confe ssion to the jury
. Se e Me nd oz a v . S tat e , 88 S.W .3d 236, 239 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ); D i n k i n s v . S tat e , 89 4 S. W.2 d 3 30 , 3 53 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ); Thomas

v . S tat e , 723 S.W .2d 696, 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986 ). Howe ver, in these case s the instruction21

reque sted by Vasque z wa s actua lly g iven by the dis t ri ct co u rt , se e Me nd oz a , 88 S.W .3d at 240; Dinkins , 894 S.W .2d at 352-53, or the court of c riminal appea ls di s cu s s ed the issue in terms of article 38.23 (illeg ally obtained evidence) , rathe r t han article 38.22 (voluntariness). Se e Me nd oz a , 88 S.W. 3d

a t 23 9; Thomas , 723 S.W .2d at 706-07. I n Me nd oz a , the cour

t of criminal appe als stated that the jury sh o u l d be instructed when e vidence raises a

“fa ctual issue as to whether a defenda nt had bee n war

ned of his rig hts and voluntarily waived them prior to making a st atement. .
. .” Id
. at 2 3 9 (c i t i n g Dinkins ). In discussing the mand a tor

y natur e of an instru c tio n on volu nta ri ne ss, the c ourt

of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls c ite d a

rt ic le 38.23(a) , not article 38.22. See 88 S.W .3d at 239. Notably , the trial cour t had g iven an instruction on voluntariness, and the only issue befor e the c ourt of cr iminal appeals was whether Mendoza was entitled to additional i nstructions applying the law to the spec ific fa cts of the c ase. Se e id . at 240. I n Dinkins , th e c ou

rt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls h e ld t

hat D ink ins wa s n ot e nti tle d to an in str uc tio n b e c a

us e there was no “

fac tua l dis pu te be fo re the jur y ov e r wh e the r [h e ] inv ok e d h is r ig ht t o c ouns e l pr ior to
ma k in g h is c o n f

e s s io n . ” 8 9 4 S. W. 2 d a t 3 5 4
. A s in Me nd oz a , t h e trial court ha d g iven a g ener al instru ct i o n o n v oluntariness and D inkins’s appea l conce rned w hether he wa s entitled to a more specific instruction apply ing the law to the specific fac ts of the case . Se e id . at 352-53. The court of cr iminal appeals’ f

ocus on “f

actua l disputes” in Thomas is also not rel ev an t to the standard f or an ins t ruction under article 38.22, section 6. See 72 3 S. W.2 d at 70 7. Th oma s argue d th a t hi s statement wa s inadmissibl e bec ause it wa s made a fter h e h ad i nvoked his rig ht to counsel. See Thomas , 723 S.W .2d at 706-07. The court found T homas’s cla im regar ding a rticle 38.22 unprese rved a

nd only discussed the rig ht to an instruction pursuant to 38.23(a)
. Se e id
.22 F ur the rm or e , th e his tor

y be hin d a

rt ic le 38 .2 2 su

pp or ts the int e rp re ta tio n th a t it require s submissi on of the issue of voluntar iness ev en wh en under ly ing f acts on whic h the de te rm inatio n is ma de are un dis pu te d. Ar tic le 38 .2 2 w a s a do pte d in r espo ns e to t he Sup re me Court’s ruling in Jack

son v. De nno , 378 U.S. 368 (1964), and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’s application of the Jack

son v. De nno approa ch to T exas la w in Lop e z v. S tat e , 3 8 4 S. W. 2 d

3 4 5 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1964). Be fore Jack son v. De nno , there wer e three g ener al ty pes of proce dures among the states for

deter mining the voluntar iness of a c onfession. See J a m e s H o p e P e a c o c k II, Procedure

—Defendant Entitled to He a r i n g o n Voluntariness of Confession Before It Goe s to the J ur y , 4 3 T ex . L
. R ev . 3 9 6 , 3 9 6 (1 9 6 5 ). T h e f i rs twa s t h e “ o rt h o d o x ru l e, ” u n d er wh i ch t h e j u d ge de te rm in ed whe the r t

he c on fe ssi on

wa s v olu nta ry and thu s a dmi ssi ble ; th e jur

y c on sid e re d o nly whether the conf

ession was c redible. See J ackson 378 U.S. at 411 app. A-I (Ha rlan, J., dis senting ). The sec ond was the “Massa chusetts rule,” under w hich the judg e hea rd all the e vidence and rule d on voluntariness before a llowing a confe ssion into evidence; if the judg e found the confe ssion voluntary , the jury

was then instruc ted that it must also find the confession voluntary befor e consideringit. Id . at 417 app. A-I I I
. The third was the “Ne w York rule,” which Texas ha d followed befor e Jack

son v. De nno . Id . at 414, 417 app. A-I I I
. The United States Supre me Court explained that the “Ne w York r

ule” r equire d a judge to submit the i ssue of voluntariness t o the j ury , “whe re
cer tain fac t s b ea ri ng on the issue ar e in dispute or where reasonable m en could differ ove r the inf e re nc es to be drawn fro m u nd isp ute d fa c ts .” Id . at 377 (e mphasis added)
. Jack son v. De nno disapproved the New York rule
. Jack son , 378 U.S. at 369-70. The Sup re me Court

fo un d th a t th e ru le ha d “a si g nif ic ant i mpa c t up on

the de fe nd ant’ s F ourt e e nth Am e ndme nt r ig hts ” be c a

us e it m a ke s it23

impossibl e to discover

whether the jury found t h e confession voluntary and re lied upon it, or involuntary and supposedly ignor ed it. Nor is there a ny indication of how the jury resolved disputes in the evidenc e conce rning the cr itical fac ts underlying the coer cion issue. I ndeed, the re is nothing to show that these matters wer e re solved at all, one wa

y or the other
. Id . at 37 9- 80 . A t th e same tim e , th e Sup re me Court fo un d no sim ila r c on sti tut ion a l pr ob le m w ith the two-step Ma ssachuse tts procedur e. Id . at 380 n.8. We raise no que stion he re conce rning the Massac husetts proce dure. In jurisdictions fol lowing this rule, the judge hear s the confe ssion evidence , himself resolves evidentiary

conflicts and g ives his own answe r to the coe rcion issue, re jecting c o n f e s s i o n s h e d e e m s i n v o l u n t ar y an d a d m i t t i n g o n l y t h o s e h e b e l i e v e s v o l u n t ar y. I t is on ly the la tte r c on fe ssi on s that are he ard by the jur y , wh ic h ma

y the n, un de r t

his proce dure, dis ag

re e with thejud

ge , fi nd thec on fe ssi on inv olun tar

yan d ig no re it. Given the integ rity

of the pre liminary

proce eding s bef

o re t h e judg e, the Massac husetts proce d ure doe s not, in our opinion, pose hazards to the rig hts of a defe ndant. While no more will be known about the vie ws of the jury than under the New Y ork rule, the jury

does not hear

all confe ssions where the re is a f air que stion of vo lun tari ne ss, bu t on ly tho se whi ch a jud g e a c tua lly and ind e pe nd e ntl y deter mines to be voluntary , based upon a ll of the evidenc e. The ju d ge’s co n s id e r a ti o n o f v o lu

n ta r in e s s is c ar

r ie d o u t s e p ar a te an d a s id e f r o m is s ues of reliability of the c onfession and the g uilt or innocence of the a ccuse d and without reg ard to the f

act the issue may ag ain be raised before the j ury if dec ided ag ainst the de fe nd ant. Th e re c or d w ill sh ow the j ud g e ’s c on c lus ion s in thi s r e g ard

and his finding s upon the underly ing fac ts may be ex press or asce rtainable from the r ecor d.
Id . (empha sis added).

As noted, bef

ore Jack son v. De nno, Texas had followed the NewYork rule , leaving solely to the jury

the deter mination of voluntariness. Se e Ma rru fo v . S tat e , 357 S. W . 2d 761, 764 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 62 ); Od is v . S tat e , 345 S. W. 2d 52 9, 53 0- 53 1 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 61 ); Newman

v . S tat e , 187 S. W . 2d 559, 561 -5 6 2 (T ex . Crim. App. 1945), cert. de nied , 326 U.S. 772 (1945); Gi ps on v . S tat e , 181 S. W . 2d 76, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 1944). Subsequently , the T ex as Court of24

Criminal Appeals applied the Jack son v. De nno standard by adding a judi cial dete rmination of voluntariness before a confe ssion may be subm itted to the jury
. See Lopez , 3 8 4 S
. W
. 2 d a t3 4 8
. In particula r, the c ourt of cr iminal appeals orde red:
I n n e w tri a ls a

ri sing here un der

and in f utu re tr ia ls i n th is s ta te wh e re the re is a fa ir question of voluntariness of a confe ssion of the defe ndant, the trial judge shall g rant to t h e d ef endant the opportunity

to object to the use of sa id confe ssion; shall gra nt a fa ir hea ring befor e the Court on the issue of voluntariness, and f

rom all of the evidenc e and w ithout reg ard to the truth or falsity of t h e co n fe s s ion, shall make a clear cu t deter

mination of the voluntariness of the confe ssion, including the resolution of disputed fac ts upon which the voluntariness issue may depend. U

pon reque st, such hear ing shall be held and the c ourt’s ruling made in the a bsence of the jury
. Unless the trial judge is satisfied that the conf ession was voluntarily

made he shall exclude it. I f the c onfession has be en found to have bee n voluntarily made a nd held admissible b y t he Court, it is recommende d that the trial judg e ente r an or der stating his f

indings, which order

should be filed amongthe pape rs of the c ause but n o te x h i b i t e d

t o t h e j u r y.
Id . By reta ining Te x as’s re liance on the jury to de termine voluntariness, the c ourt adopted a two-step proce dure r esembling the Massac husetts rule appr oved in Jack son v. De nno :
Af te r a c on fe ssi on ha s be e n a dmi tte d in e vid e nc e to the jur y , the de fe nd ant m ay

sti ll adduce evidenc e re lating to its voluntariness, which evidenc e may be considered by t h e t ri al j u d ge wi t h o t h er ev i d en ce o n t h e i s s u e o f i t s v o l u n t ar i n es s . I f t h e t ri al j u d ge conclude s from all of the e vidence that the confe ssion should not ha ve bee n admitted, he wi ll w ith dr aw it. Othe rw ise the jur y may and sh a ll, up on

re qu e st o f t

he de fe nd ant, be instructed to the e ffe ct that they cannot c onsider the conf

ession unless they

believe bey ond a re asonable doubt that it was voluntarily made.
Id . A rt ic le 38 .2 2 codi fi e s th is a pp ro a c h. I n li g ht o f t

he un iqu e natur e of

the vo lun tari ne ss deter mination, the fac t that confe ssions are g overne d by a separ ate code provision, a nd the consistentSee , e.g. , Ro c ha v . S tat e , 16 S
. W
. 3 d1, 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Terrazas, 4 S.W .3d 10 a t 72 4; Mu niz , 851 S.W .2d at 254-55; Mi nie l v . S tat e , 831 S.W .2d 310, 316-17 (Te x . Crim. App. 1 992); Hernande

z , 8 19 S.W. 2d

a t 81 2; Mo rg

an v . S tat e , 502 S.W .2d 722, 723 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). 25 case law g overningarticle 38.22, we hold that a de fenda n t m ay b e en t itled to an instruction on 10 voluntariness even if the facts surrounding his confe ssion are undisputed. An instruction must be g ive n if a r e a s o n a

b le ju r y , v ie w in g th e to ta li ty o f th e c ir c u ms ta n c e s , c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th a t the statement was not voluntar ily made. See H ernandez , 819 S.W .2d at 812; Dix and Da wson § 13.393 at 219.
V as que z ra ise d th eiss ue

of v olu nta rine

ss Havingclari fi ed the standar d, we now r eview the rec ord to deter mine whether Vasque z raised the issue of voluntar iness—c o u ld a rea sonable jury

have f ound that his statement was not voluntar ily

made. See Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt . 3 8. 22 , § 6; Terrazas, 4 S.W .3d at 724; He rn an de z v . S tat e , 81 9 S. W.2 d at 81 2. We b e g in b y no tin g tha

t V a sq ue z’s de fe ns e re ste d a lmo st entirely on attackinghis confession as involuntary . During his short opening argument Vasque z’s counsel foc used solely

on the circ umstances of

the interrog ation. He c oncluded:
You will see the vide o of the leng thy interrog ation by the police. You will see Mr. Va sq ue z. Y ou wi ll s e e the po lic e int e ra c tio n w ithMr . V a sq ue z. A nd Isu bmi t to y ou, members of

the jury , afte r y ou have se en all of the evidenc e i n t h is case, you will, one, have a rea sonable doubt a bout w hether or not that alleg ed conf ession was v o l u n tary , and more important, y ou will have a r easona ble doubt about whethe r or not Guadalupe Vasque z commit ted this murder.
I n the cour se of makingan evide ntiary ruling at trial, the district cour t c ommented, “it appea

rs the d e f e n s i v e t h e o r

y i s t o a t t a c k t h e v o l u n t ar i n e s s o f t h e c o n f e s s i o n . ” A l t h o u g h V a s qu e z d i d n o tt e s t i f y,26

the videotape of the interr og ation prec eding his c onfession was admitted into evidence . As we ha ve discussed, the videotape is e vidence that Vasque z wa s subjected to a leng thy interrog ation. He wa s separ ated f

rom his wife, a

nd his requests to speak with h er were g ener ally ignor ed or de nied. Va sq ue z al so a sk e d to le a ve on a numbe r o f o c c a sio ns . Whe n it a pp e are d that V a sq

ue z wa s a c tua lly de te rm ine d to le a ve , h is b oo ts w e re take n a s evi de nc e . He wa s told he c ou ld l e a ve bu t th a t he c ou ld not return to his home bec ause police wer e executing a sear ch war rant. There was a lso evidence that Vasque z had been pr escr ibed psy chiatric medication and that he had attempted suicide on seve ral
oc c a sio ns . V a sq

ue z wa s tol d that

the de te c tiv e s w ou ld h e lp h im o bta in m e dic a tio n to c on tr ol h is ang er. When Va squez init ially confe ssed to the murder , h e wa s cry ing a nd holding De tective Sc anlo n’ s ha

nd
. Va sq ue z wa s no t inf

or me d o f h is Miranda rig hts until afte r he had given a detailed confe ssion. This is the sort of e vidence that has bee n found to raise the issue of voluntarine ss. See Sh ne c k lot h , 41 2 U. S. a t 22 6; Terrazas , 4 S.W .3d at 726-27. Althoug h the trial cour t did not err by
overr uling Va squez’s motion t o suppress his co n fe s s ion, we hold that, base d on the re cord, a
rea sonable jury

could have conclude d that Vasque z ’s confession was not voluntarily made. See Hernande z , 819 S.W .2d at 812; Dix and Da wson § 13.3 9 3 at 2 1 9
. Acc ording ly , Vasque z was entitled to an ins truction on voluntariness pursuant to article 38.22, section 6, of the c ode of c riminal proce dure.
Har m We n e xt de te r

mi n e w h e th e r th e f

a il u r e to p r o p e r ly in s tr

u c t th e ju r y h ar me d V a s qu e z. A trial cour

t’s failure to giv e an instruction on voluntariness is subject to harm ana ly sis under Al ma nz a . Se e Car

de na s v . S tat e , 3 0 S
. W
. 3 d 3 8 4 , 3 9 3 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g Pa y ne v . S tat e ,27

11 S.W .3d 231, 231-32 (Te x . Crim. App. 2000)). Be cause Vasque z made a timely objection to the
err or in the charg e, “reve rsal is require d if the error is ‘ca lculated to injure t he rig hts of defe ndant,’ which mea

ns no more than that ther e must be some harm to the acc used fr om the err or.” Al ma nz a
v . S tat e , 6 86 S.W. 2d

15 7, 17 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 84 ). He re , th e ha rm re su lti ngfr om t

he fa ilure to instruct the jury

on voluntariness is obvious. Fr om ope ning a rg ument on, Vasque z’s case w as g ear ed towards r aising questions in the jury ’s mind reg ardingthe vo l u n t ar i n ess of his confession. As dis c us se d a

bo ve , th e e vid e nc e of

the c ir c ums tanc e s o f V a sq ue z’s c on fe ssi on wa s su c h th a t a
r e a s o n a b le ju r o r c o u ld h a v e f o u n d th e c o n f e s s io n inv o lu n ta r y . Wi th o u t t

h e r e qu e s te d

in s tr uction, the jury was given no mecha

nism to act if it wa s persua ded by the def ense c ase. F urthermor e, the State c omm e nte d s pe c if

ic a lly on the la c k o f a

n in str uc tio n in its c los ingargume nt:
T h e r e is n o w r itte nin s tr

u c ti o nin h e r e w h a ts o e v e r , a s p r o mi s e d b y [d e f e n s e c o u n s e l] , that if y ou

do n’ t be lie ve that th e c on fe ssi on wa s v olu nta ry y ou sh a ll n ot c on sid e r i t for a ny purpose. Do y ou know why ? Be cause it wa sn’t raised by the evidenc e. As a matter of law, this is a voluntary confe ssion. Period.
Al t h o u gh t h er e w as s i gn i fi ca n t ev i d en ce o f gui l t ap ar t fr o m t h e co n fe s s i o n , t h e e rr o r i nt h e c h ar ge
e ff e c tiv e ly ne g a te d V a sq

ue z’s e nti re de fe ns e . A c c or din g ly , w e ho ld t hat t here was “ so me ha

rm ” resulting from the er

ror. Se e Al

ma nz a , 686 S.W .2d at 171. We sustain Vasquez’s four th point of
err or. CO NC LU SION

W e h o l d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt d i d n o t e r r b y a d m i t t i n g V a s qu e z ’ s s t a te me nts int o evidenc e or by

dictating its findings of f act a nd conclusions o f l aw i n t o the re cord. H oweve r, be c a us e Va sq ue z wa s h arm e d b y th e di stric t c ourt ’s e rr on e ou s r e fu sa l to ins tr uc t th e jur

y in28

acc ordanc e with ar

ticle 38.22, sec tion 6, of

the code of cr iminal procedur e, we reve rse the c onviction and re mand for a

new tria l consistent with this opinion.

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Reverse d and Remande d Filed: Oc tober 21, 2005 Pub lis h