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

NO. 03-0 8 -00 542 -CR

Jo se De Je sus Cue va s , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ASTROP COUNTY , 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 1240 2 , HO NORAB LE CHARLO TTE HINDS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j ur y c on vic te d Jose DeJ e su s Cu e va s o f t he of fe ns e of ind e c e nc y

wi th a c hil d by contac t. See Tex. P enal Code An n . § 21.11(a) (1) ( West 2003). Punis hment was a ssessed at ten y ear s’ imprisonment and a $2,500 f ine, but th e dis trict court suspende d imposit ion of th e s e n te n c e an d p la c e d Cu e v a s o n p r o b a ti o n f o r te n y e ar s . I n a s in g le is s u e o n appea l, Cuevas challeng es the a dmissibi lity of ce rtain statements he alleg edly made to the pol ice. W e will aff irm the judg ment of convic tion.
BACK GR OUND

The complainant in this case w as M.B ., an 11-y ear -old g irl. The jury hear d evidenc e that on J uly

20, 20 0 6 , M
. B.’ s g randmother , apar tment manag er Ele na B osley of San Mar cos, trave led to S mi th vi ll e to tr ain Mary Tri ni dad , t he n ew m anager o f an a ffi li ate d ap art men t co mp lex . M .B.
acc ompanied B osley

on the t rip. Bosley testified t hat when they arr ived, she wor

ked with Trinidad2

in th e o ffice are a while M.B . watche d television in a living-r oom are a down the ha ll. Accor ding to Bosley , she eventually hear d “a lot of laug hter” and M.B . “beingquite loud.” Trinidad we nt to the other room a

nd asked M.B . to be quiet. When T rinidad re turned to the off ice, she repor

ted to Bosley that M.B. wa s “playing ta g ” with Cuevas, the proper ty ’s maintenanc e man. Bosley testified that she and Trinidad continued working while Cuevas and M.B. continued playing “ for a couple of hours.” L ater that day , Bos l ey ex p l ained, M.B . came into the office upset and indicated that Cuevas had be en “kissing her a nd g rabbingher pr ivates.” Trinidad called Cuevas into the off ice and conf ronted him with the ac cusations. Acc ording to B osley , Trinidad and Cue vas spoke to ea ch
o th e r in Sp an is h
. B o s le y

te s ti f ie d th a t C u e v a s d e n ie d

th e a c c u s a ti o n s an d

le f t t h e r o o m. T h e n e xt day , Bosley

repor ted M.B.’ s acc usation to the police. Detec tive L onny

Richardson of the Smithville Pol i ce De p ar t m en td ec i d ed to i nterview Cuevas. When Richardson le arne d that Cuevas wa s not fluent in Eng lish, he contac ted Trinidad and “r equeste d that she have [C uevas] come ove r at a specific time f or the interview.” The intervie w
wa s sch e du le d f

or Au g us t 4, 20 06 . B e c a

us e Ric ha rd so n w a s n ot f

lue nt i n Sp anis h, he arr ang e d to have O ffice r Noe Martinez, a Spanish-spea king inve stigato r from the Ba strop County Sheriff’ s Depa rtment, prese nt dur ing the interview. Acc ording to Richa rdson, Cuevas arr ived at the pol ice depar tment at the pre -ar

rang ed time. Richardson met Cueva s in the lobby and dire cted him to the in te r v ie w r o o m. Ri c h ar d s o nte s ti f ie d th a t M arti n e z c o n d

u c te d th e in te r v ie w w h il e Ri c h ar dson primarily observe d. Martinez testified at trial a bout the interview. A ccor d in g to M a r ti n e z, a f te r h e advise d Cuevas of his rig hts, and Cuevas indicated that he unde rstood those rig hts, he questioned Cueva sTo a vo id c on fu sin g Se rg e ant Sa bin o Ma rt ine z wi th Of

fi c e r No e Ma

rt ine z, we wi ll r e fe r t o 1 Sabino Martinez using his first name
. 3 about the inciden

t. M a r ti n e z t estified that Cueva s repe atedly denied kissing or touchingM.B., e x cept on the bac k of her

shoulder while they

wer e “pla

y ing ta g .” Mar

tinez reca lled that the interview with Cuevas lasted ap p rox imately 30 to 35 minutes. At the end of the inter view, Mar

tinez asked Cuevas if he would consent to a se cond intervie w. Acc ording to Martinez, Cuevas ag ree d. Cuevas then left the police depar

tment. Martinez then advised Richa rdson that, in his opinion, C uevas w as
no t be ingtr

uth fu l. Richardson s ch ed u l ed the second interview for August 31, 2006. W hen Cueva s
arr ived at the police depar tment that day , he wa s ag ain dire ct ed to an interview room. This time, Cuevas wa s interviewe d by S er gea n t Sabino Martinez, a Spanish-speaking of fice r with the Depa rtment of Public Safety Criminal I ntellige nce Ser vice. During this int ervie w, Sabino testified, 1 Cuevas admitted to kissing a nd touching M.B.: Q: So over the c ourse of this int ervie w, d i d y ou in fac t talk to him about the alleg ations made by

[M.B.] from J uly

20 of 2006? A: Yes, I

did.

. . . . Q: And as you are confr onting the d ef en d ant wit h the evidenc e that y ou have g ather ed fr om the Smit hville Police Depa rtment, does he make an admission to y ou? A: Ye s, he do e s. Q: And what a dmission?4

A: He sa id h e tou c he d th e vic tim ’s [se xua l or g an], whic h is [M.B .], ove r h is clothes—over

her c lothing—I ’m sorry

—and had kissed he r, as she alleg ed.

. . . . Q: So a ft e r h e make s th a t state men t to y ou , d o you re qu e st h im t o mo ve to ano the r r oo m? A: Ye s, that’ s c or

re c t. Q: And do y ou inform L ieutenant Richa rdson that something has happe ned? A: Yes. I

informed him t h at Cuevas had a dmitted to the alleg ations from the victim. And Itold him t hat we w ere g oing to move t o an o t h er room so we can g o ahea d and tape t h e i nterview , and so I could translate to L ieutenant Richardson what Cuevas had a dmitted. Q: An d w hil e y ’a ll a re sti ll i n th e fi rst roo m, you kn ow , a ft e r h e a dmi ts t o touching the victim’s [sex ual org an] ove r her c lothes and kissing he r, do y ou ta lk a bo ut t he se xua lity

of thi s c on ta c t? A: Iasked him if the touchingwas for a sexual impulse—that he felt some ty pe of impulse, and then touche d the victim, and he a dmitted that he had.
After obtaining the above a dmissions , which we re not re corde d, Sabino moved Cuevas to t he other int e rv ie w r oo m, b ro ug ht i n Ri c ha rd so n, and , a ft e r a g a in a dv isi ng Cue va s of h is r ig hts , p ro c e e de d to int e rv ie w h im. Duri ngthi s int e rv ie w— wh ic h wa s re c or de d— a

pp are ntl y Cue va s a g a in a dmi tte d toA D VD re c or din g of the int e rv ie w, c on du c te d in Spa nis h, wa s p lay e d for th e ju ry wh ile 2 a cour troom interpre ter tra

nslated what was bei n g said. Althoug h there is no English translation included inth e r e c o r d

b e f o r e u s , w e h a v e n e v e rth e le s s r e v ie w e d th e D V D
. We o b s e r

v e th a t a t sever al points during the i nterview , the recording ref lects t hat S abino t ranslate d to Richardson the questions he was a sking a nd Cuevas’s r esponses to those questions. One suc h response , acc ording to Sabino in the rec ording , was Cuevas admitting to kissing M.B. a nd then touching her se x ual org an o v er h er cl o t h i n g. 5 committing the off

ense. At the conc lusion of the interview, Cueva s was again relea sed. He was 2

arr ested seve ral da

y s later, on Septembe r 5, 2006. At Cuevas’s tria l, in addition to t he above evidenc e, the jury hear d testimony

from M. B., w ho tes t if

iedabo ut her r ecol lec ti on of w hat hap pen ed o n t he d ay of t he i nci den t. M. B. testified that, while she a

nd Cuevas wer e taking a brea k from playing tag , Cuevas “tr ied to Fr enchkiss me” and “ g rabbe d my private” “with his ha

nds.” Cuevas testified in his defe nse and de nied the alleg ations ag ainst him. On cross-e x amination, when Cueva s was conf ronted with his admissions during the re corde d interview, he claimed that he did not understand the questions that were being asked. Seve ral other

witnesses, primar ily

Cuevas’s r elatives, a lso testified on Cuevas’s be half. The jury found Cuevas guilty

of committing the of

fense of indec ency with a child by contac t, and he wa s place d on probation. This appe al followed.
ISSU E P RE SEN TED I n his sole issue on appea l, Cuevas asserts that the di strict court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress the unre corde d statements that he made t o S ab i n o d uring the second inter

view. He claims that he wa s in custody when he made these statements and, ther efor e, th e u n r e c o r d e d s tate me n ts w e r e in a dmi s s ib le
. See T ex . Code Crim. Proc. Ann. ar t. 38.22, § 36

(We st 2 00 5) (p ro vid in g th a t or a l st a te me nt o f a c c us e d r e su lti ngfr om c us tod ia l in te rr og a tio n is ina dmi ssi ble un le ss, a mon g oth e r t hin g s, it i s e le c tr on ic a lly

re c or de d) . We no te tha

t, o n a pp e a l, Cuevas does not c halleng e the a dmissibi lity of any other evidence obtained during his i nterview s at the pol ice department, including t he DVD rec ording of his interview w ith Sabino while Ri char dson was pre sent. I n response , the State argues that at the time the complained- of statements we re ma de, Cuevas wa s not “in custody ” for the purposes of

article 38.22.
STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW “A tria l court’s ruling o n a motion to suppress, like any ruling on the admission of evidenc e, is subjec t to revie w on appea l f or abuse of

discretion.” Am ad

or v . S tate , 275 S.W .3d 872, 8 7 8 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g State v. Dixon , 206 S.W .3d 587, 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)). “‘In other wor ds, the trial cour t’s ruling will be upheld if it is reasona bly supported by

the re cord a

nd is corre ct under

any theory of law a pplicable to the c ase.’ ” Id
. (q u o t i n g Ra mo s v . S tate , 245 S.W .3d 41 0, 41 7- 18 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 )) . “ I n r e vie wi nga tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin g on

a mot ion to s up pr e ss, appellate courts must view all of the evidenc e in the light most fa vorable to the trial court’ s ruling.” Sta te v . G ar c ia- Can tu , 253 S.W .3d 236, 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

We are to “af

ford a lmost t otal defe renc e to a tria l court’s de t er m ination of the historical fa cts that the re cord suppor ts especia lly

when the tr ial court’s fac t f indings are based on a

n evaluation of cre dibilit y

and deme anor.” Sta te v . R os s , 32 S.W .3d 853, 856 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (c i t i n g Gu

zm an v . S tate , 9 55 S.W. 2d

85 , 8 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 )) . We are to “a ff or d th e same amount of def

ere nce to tria l courts’ ruling s on ‘application of law t o fac t questions,’ also known as ‘mixed questions of law an d fac t,’ if the re solution of those ulti mate questions turns on7

an evaluation of

cre dibilit y

and deme anor.” Id
. “A trial judge ’s ultimate ‘custody ’ dete rmination ‘pre sents a ‘mixed question of law and f act.’ ’” He rre ra v . S

tate , 2 41 S.W. 3d 52 0, 52 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p . 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Thompson v. Keohane , 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 (1995)) . “The ref o re , we affor d
a lm o s t t o ta l d e f

e r e n c e to a

tr ia l j u d g e ’ s ‘ c u s to dy ’ d e te r mi n a ti o nw h e nth e qu e s ti o n s o f h is to r ical fac t turn on cre dibilit y

and deme anor.” Id . at 526-27 (c itin g Ri pko wsk i v . S tate , 61 S.W .3d 378, 381 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). “Conver sely , when th e questions of historica l fac t do not turn
on cre dibilit y

and deme anor, w e will revie w a tria l judge ’s ‘custody ’ dete rmination de novo.” Id
. at 527.
AN AL YSI S

For Cuevas’s unr ecor ded stateme nts to be inadmissibl e, they m u s t have be en the result of “c ustodial interrog ation.” See Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . Ann . ar t. 3 8. 22 , § § 3 , 5 ; He rre ra , 241 S.W .3d at 525. “Custodial interrog ation” is define d as “que s t i o n i n g i n itiated by law enfor ceme nt office rs after a person has been taken int o custody or ot herw ise deprive d of hi s fre edom of ac tion in any

signific ant way .” Miranda v. Arizona , 3 84 U. S. 4 36 , 4 44 (1 96 6) . Ape rs on is i n “custody” only

if, under the circ umstances, a rea sonable pe rson would beli eve that his free dom of movement wa s restra ined to the deg ree associate d with a forma l arre st. Do wth it t v. St ate , 9 3 1 S
. W
. 2 d

2 4 4 , 2 5 4 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 6 ) ( ci t i n g Sta ns bu ry v . Ca lif or nia , 511 U.S. 318, 32 2 (1 99 4) ); Ba rtl e tt v . S tate , 2 4 9 S. W. 3 d 6 5 8 , 6 6 8 ( T e x. A p p . — A u s ti n 2 0 0 8 , p e t. r e f

’ d ) . The “re asonable person” standard presuppose s an innoce nt person. Do wth itt , 931 S.W .2d at 254 (citing F lo r id a v . B o s ti ck , 50 1 U.S . 429 , 4 38 (1 99 1) ); Ba rtl e tt , 249 S.W .3d at 669. Moreove r, the deter mination of custody

depends on the objective c i rc u m s t an ce s of the interr og ation, not theRe fe re nc e s to a po lyg ra phe xam, or

to i ts r e su lts , a

re in adm is si bl e fo r a ll p ur po se s. 3 Ma rti ne z v . S tate , 2 7 2 S
. W
. 3 d 6 1 5 , 6 2 6 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Nesb it v . S tate , 227 S.W .3d 64, 66 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). All testimony reg arding the poly g raph exam wa s elicited during a h e ar i n g o u t s i d e t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e j u r y. Cue va s c on c e de s in his br ie f that “ he wa s no t in c us tod y duri ng the fi rs t i nt ervi ew wi th 4 Noe Ma rtinez, or during the pre -test i nterviewwith Sabino Martinez, or during the [p] oly g raph examination.” Moreover , Cuevas does not contend that his rec orded statements were inadmissible. 8 subjective view s of the person being questioned or the s ubjective intent of t he officer to arr est or not
arr est. Sta ns bu ry , 5 11 U. S. at 32 3; Do wth itt , 9 31 S.W. 2d a t 25 4; Ba rtl e tt , 249 S.W .3d at 669. The
c o u rto f c r i m i n a l a

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

a tl e a s tf o u r g e n e r a l s i tu a t i o n s w h i c h m ay c o n s t i tu t e c u s t o dy:

“ ( 1 ) w h e nt h e s u s p e c ti s p h ys i c a l l y d e p r i v e d o f h i s f r e e d o m o f

a c t i o ni nan y s i g n i f

i c an tw ay, (2) whe n a law e nforc ement office r tells the suspect that he ca nnot leave, ( 3) whe n law enf orce ment office rs cr eate a situation that would lead a rea sonable pe rson to believe that his free d o m of movement has be en sig nificantly restric ted, and (4) when t here is probable cause to arre st and law enfor ceme nt of

fice rs do not tell the suspect that he is fr ee to lea ve.” Do wth itt , 931 S.W .2d at 255. Cuevas’s a

rg ument implicates the t hird situation. He claims that the office rs’ a ctions during the sec ond interview c reated a “ de fa cto” c ustody situation. I n his b ri ef

, Cuevas foc uses specific ally

on a polyg raph e x am t hat S abino admini stered to him during the i nterview . I n a hea ring
o u t s i d e t h e p r e s e n c e o f

t h e j u r y, S abi no tes ti fi ed t hat Cu evas adm it ted ki ss in g and t ou chi ng M. B. 3
o n l y af t er Cuevas had c ompleted a polyg raph e x am and Sabino informe d him that the result of the ex am was “dece pti on ind ic a te d. ” Ac c or din g to C ue va s, “ on c e Mart ine z co nf ro nte d h im w ith t h e r e s u l t s o f

t h e p o l yg r a

p h
. . . h e w a s i nc u s t o d y a t t h a t p o i n t , an d an y unrecorded questioning and stateme nts elicited afte r that point are inadmissible.” 4I n fa c t, it i s w e ll s e ttl e d th a t c us tod y do e s n ot o c c ur

me re ly be c a us e the su sp e c t su

bmi ts t o 5 an d fa i ls a poly g raph. See, e .g. , Do wth itt v . S tate , 9 3 1 S. W. 2 d 2 4 4 , 2 5 5 ( T e x. Cr im
. A pp. 1996); Sh ifl e t v . S

tate , 7 32 S.W.2d

62 2, 63 0- 31 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 85 ); Sto nev . S tate , 583 S.W .2d 41 0, 41 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 79 ); Tur ne r v . S tate , 2 5 2 S. W. 3 d

5 7 1 , 5 7 7 ( T e x. A p p . —Houston [14t h Dist.] 2008, pet. re f’d)
. 9

As support for this contention, Cuevas r elies primar ily on Mc Cro ry

v . S tate , 643 S.W .2 d 7 2 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). I n Mc Cro ry , th e de fe nd ant t oo k a po lyg ra phe xam,
wa s a dv ise d th a t he ha d b e e n “ de c e pti ve in h is r e sp on se s, ” and su bs e qu e ntl y

c on fe sse d to committing the cr ime afte r beingsubjected to a “post-test interview ” by

both law enf

orce ment and a for ensic psy chiatrist. Se e id . at 72 8- 30 . T he c ou rt he ld t hat Mc Cr or

y wa s in c us tod

y a t th e tim e he had c onfesse d and, ther efor e, his oral c onfession wa s inadmissibl e. Id
. at 734. I n m aking the custody

deter mination, the court focuse d on the “totality of the c ircumstance s.” Id . at 73 4. Thus , the poly g raph e x am, althoug h one fa ctor the c ourt consider ed , wa s not disposit ive. I nstead, 5 the cour t focused on e vidence tending to show that McCrory was not “f

ree to le ave” during the interview. Se e id . at 731-32.

I n c on tr a st, the e vidence in t his c a se su

pp or ts a fi nd ingby

the dis tr ic t c ourt

that a
rea sonable pe rson in Cuevas’s position would have understood that he w as fr ee to lea ve. L ieutenant Richardson testified that he ar rang ed the second interview by contac ting Ma

ry Trinidad, Cueva s’s employ er, a

nd advising her of

the time and the date of the i n t er view. Richar dson testified that he did not tell Trinidad “that [Cuevas] had to c o m e, ” n o r di d he ar rang e tra nsportation to the police depar tment. When asked if at the time Cueva s arr ived at the police depa rt ment, Cuevas g ave
any ind ic a tio n that he did no t wa nt to be the re , Ri c ha

rd so n te sti fi e d, “ He did

no t.” Ric ha

rd so n a lso testified that during the re corde d interview f ollowing the poly gra p h , C u evas did not make any10

movements to try to leave . When asked what he would have done if Richar dson had tried to leave, Richardson testified, “ Iwould have ope ned the door for him and e scorted him throug h the locked d o o r t o t h e o u t s i d e. ” A cc o rd i n g t o R i c h ar d s o n , h e c o n v ey edt h i s i n fo rm at i o nt o C u ev as t h ro u gh Sabino. Richardson fur

ther testified that Cuevas did in fac t leave the po lice depa rtment afte r the interview w as complete d. Richardson conclude d, “To the best of my knowledg e he w ould have no
rea son to believe that he was not fr ee to lea ve at his own will.” Serg eant Sabino Mar

tinez provided simil ar te stimony
. Sabino testified that at the “ve ry beg inning” of t h e i n terview , he re ad to Cuevas in Spanish the conte nts of a “w aiver of ri g hts ” fo rm . O ne of

the se ri g hts wa s to “no t mak e any state me nt at a ll, ” and

ano the r w a s “ to terminate or

stop the interview at any time.” Cuevas sig ned the f orm, thus indicating that he “knowing ly , intelligently , and voluntarily ” wa ived those rig hts. The State then e licited the following testimony about whethe r Sabino informed Cueva s that he wa s fre e to leave : Q: Did y ou ever inform the de fenda nt that he was f

ree to leave a

ny time he decide d he wa

nted to g o? A: Ye s. I n th e fo rm

Ima de sure he un de rs too d th a t. Q: An d s o you

ve rb a lly g a ve it t o h im? A: Ye s. Q: As well as a

signe d piece of pape r? A: Ye s, c or

re c t. Q: Di d you

e ve r t e ll h im that, a g a in, duri ngthi s p ro c e ss?Th e on ly oth e r f or m f ro m th e se c on d in te rv ie w i n th e re c or d is a fo rm wr itt e n e nti re ly 6 in Spanish appare ntly

g iving c onsent to submit t o the poly g raph e x am. A tra n s l at i o n of the for m do e s n ot a pp e ar i n th e re c or d. Ho we ve r, Sa bin o tes tif

ie d that the fo rm

state s, “ Ic an le a ve any

tim e Ide sir e .” Cue va s’ s si g natur e a pp e ars on thi s f or m. 11 A: Ibe lieve whe n we we re ta lki ngto t he of fi c e r i n th e ta

pin g , it se lf

, I did te ll him, y es, y ou’re fre e to le ave. You’re not f orce d to be here . And at one point Iasked him, have we pr omised y ou any thing? . . . And he sa id, no. Q: So based on y our ex perie nce, as a poli ce office r, and a Spanish-speake r, wa s h e g e t t i n g t h e f

a c tt h a th e w a s n o ti nc u s t o dy? A: Ithink so. Q: E v ery

t h i n g— A: Ithi nk

he wa s. Q: —e ve ry

thi nghe sig ne d a

nd sa id t o you

ind ic a te d h e wa s? A: Correc t. For him, this was two or thre e forms to tell him t hat,[ ] an d h im s til l 6 continuing.
Sabino also testified that Cuevas did no t s ee m reluc tant to take the polyg raph e x am and took the exam “rig ht away .” Acc ording to Sabino, Cuevas was cooper ative during the exam—“he wasn’t one of these pe rsons that tries to move or some ty pe of c ounter-me asure s.” Sa bin o ex pl ain ed tha t Cu e va s a dmi tte d to the of fe ns e “ may

be 15 or 20 min ute s” afte r beingconfr onted with the re sults of the poly g raph. A fter Cuevas made his admission, S abino testified, they

moved to another

room and Sabino ag ain re iterate d t h at C u evas w as fr ee to lea ve: “I made sure that he understood that he could leave at any time at that point.” When asked if Cueva s decide d to stay , Sabino testified, “He stay ed. He didn’t move.”12 Sabin o al s o testified that he wa s fluent in the Spanish lang uag e and that he has the a bil ity to sp eak di ffere nt d ia le c ts o f S pa nis h b a se d o n th e e du c a tio n le ve l of the pe rs on

wi th wh om h e is c omm

un ic a tin g . A c c or din g to S a bin o, he and Cue va s we re a ble to c on ve rs e in S pa

nis h
and un de rs tand

on e ano the r. Sa

bin o te sti fi e d that he did

no t de te c t th a t Cu e va s h a d a ny dif fi c ult y
u n d e r s ta n d in g w h a t h e w a s te ll in g h im
. We a ls o o b s e r v e th a t, u nlike in McCror y , the evidenc e shows that Cuevas lef

t the police d ep ar t ment afte r the intervie w conc luded. He w as not arr ested until several da

y s after the interview
. Cuevas also testified at the suppression hea ring . When asked if he rec alled being told by Sabino at the start of the interview that he was f ree to go, Cue vas testified, “ Iwas so bad in my ear s, Iwas n o t h ea ri n g wh at he wa s saying. I never understood him to say

that. I f I had understood him to have sa id that, Iwould have left.” Cuevas also testified that the off icer s called Trinidad and “ told her t hat I had to show up at t he P olice Station to be interviewe d.” When aske d if he understood that his pr esenc e was “re quired,” Cuevas testified, “I t w as voluntary , y eah, but they
wer e telling me that I

had to show up at a

cer tain time and I

had to comply

with that.” On cr oss, Cuevas admitted that he drove himself to the police depar tment in his t ruck. Ho we ve r, h e t e s t i f

i e d t h a th e th o u g h th e w a s “ o b l i g a t e d ” t o b e a tt h e p o l i c e d e p art m e n t“ be c a us e the y tol d me Iha d to sh owup .” Cue va s a lso a c kn ow le dg e d that he und e rs tand s th e Spa nis h lang uag e. He testified that he signe d both the waiver -of- rig hts f orm and the f

orm consentingto the poly g raph. Cueva s denied that Sabino told him that he was fr ee to l ea v e and that he did not have to take the e x am. Acc ording to Cuevas, he kne w the polyg raph f orm “said t h at I could l eave , butI n its ruling at the suppr ession hear ing, the district court explained, 7 Icannot possibly

g rant y our motion [ defe nse counse l] , havi n g listened to the testimony of t he officer s, watching these tapes, and the DV D, it appea rs to me that the law e nforc ement off icer s tried in a my

riad of w ay s to make sure that he understood what was being e x plained to him. And althoug h he did at some times seem to be ha

ving pr oblems hear ing, I believe that the offic ers took eve ry step that the y c ou ld to make sure that he un de rs too d. He se e me d to have re mark a ble c lari ty at times after

he proc laimed not to be able to he ar.
13 Inever understood that this meant I could ac tually

g et up and lea

ve.” Cu ev as re p ea ted, “I f I had understood that, I

would have le ft.” Resolving the c onflict betwe en Cueva s’s testimony and the of

fice rs’ te s t i mony require s a cr edibility

assessment. The district court wa s in t h e best position to evaluate the
cre dibilit y

of the witnesse s and wa s fre e to disbelieve Cueva s’s t es t i m o n y . Tur ne r v . S tate , 252 S.W .3d 571, 580 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2008, pet. re f’d)
. Giving the district court’s
cre dibilit y

assessment the de fer ence it is due, we find no abuse of discretion in the district cour t’s resolution of the a

bove conf licts in the evidence
. 7 Vi ew i n g t h e e v i d en ce i nt h e l i gh tm o s tfa v o rab l e t o t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s ru l i n g,
we c onclude that the district c ourt did n o t ab u s e i t s discretion in finding that the circ umstances
surr ound ingthe se c ond inte rv ie w, a s d e sc ri be d b y Ric ha rd so n a nd Sa bin o, wo uld

no t c a us e
a re asonable person to believe t hat his fre edom of moveme nt was re strained to the de g ree associate d with a forma l arre st. Se e He rre ra , 2 41 S.W. 3d at 525; Sto nev . S tate , 583 S.W .2d 410, 413 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 79 ); se e als o S ha w v . S tate , No. 03-08-00506- CR (Tex. App.—Austi n J uly 3, 2009, no pet. h.) (in c ase involving simil ar f acts, c onclu d i n g t h at rec ord supported f indingCuevas asse rts that during the videotape d interview, he “did not admit any thing r esembling 8 his alleg ed stateme nts in the pre-inter view.” We c annot ver ify

this asser tion from the untra

nslated re c or din g . I f C ue va s is re lyingon the re c or din g to s ho w h arm , it wa s Cu e va s’ s r e sp on si bi lity to ensure that the appellate rec ord conta ined the tra nslation. See W

or d v. Stat e , 206 S.W .3d 646, 651-52 (Te x . Crim. App. 2006) (“It is usually the appe aling party ’s burden to present a rec ord sh ow ingpr op e rl y

pr e se rv e d, re ve rsi bl e e rr or .” ); Ro we ll v . S tate , 6 6 S. W.3 d 2 79 , 2 82 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2001) (“ I t is no longer nece ssary , or suffic ient, for a party to argue that the a ppeal should be de c ide d by hy

po the se s abo ut miss ingpo rt ion s o f t he re c or d. ” ); Or tiz

v . S tate , 144 S.W .3d 225, 230 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2004, pet. re f’d) (holding that appellant ha s not been relieve d of his burden of de veloping sufficie nt r ecor d in trial court to demonstrate reve rsible er ror on a ppeal)
. 14 that defe ndant was not in custody beca use off icer testifi ed t h at defe ndant was f ree to leave e ven afte r polyg raph e x a

m e n d e d ) . Acc ording ly , the re cord suppor ts the district court’s dete rmination that Cue va s w a s n ot i n c us tod y wh e n h e ma de the unre c or de d s tate me nts
. Moreove r, eve n if the unre corde d statements wer e obtained a s a result of c ustodial int e rr og a tio n, we wo uld

fi nd any e rr or in t he ir a dmi ssion harm le ss. Th e a dmi ssi on of state me nts taken in non-c ompliance with ar ticle 38.22 is non-constitutional error
. Non n v . S tate , 117 S.W .3d 87 4, 88 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ). Ac c or din g ly , w e mus t di sr e g ard the e rro r u

nle ss i t a ff

e c ts C u ev as ’s substantial rig hts. See T e x. R. A p p . P. 4 4
. 2 ( b )
. A s u b s ta n ti a l r ig h t is a f

f e c te d when the e rr or ha s a su bs tanti a l and

inj ur iou s e ff

e c t or inf lue nc e in d e te rm ini ngthe jur y ’s ve rd ic t. W

oods

v . S tat e , 152 S.W .3d 105, 118-19 (Te x . Crim. App. 2004).

Her e, in addition to the unrec orded statements, the jury also hear d the DVD r ecor ding in which Cuevas a g ain admitted his g uilt. W hile the Engl i s h t ranslation of the DVD doe s not ap pear in the rec ord, a t s e v e r a l p o in ts d u r in g th e in te r

v ie w , Sa b in o e xp la in s to Ri c h ardson wha t 8 he is asking Cuevas and w hat Cuevas is telling him in response. Sab i n o t o ld Richardson that Cuevas admitted kissing M.B. a nd then touching her se x ual org an. L ater , Sabino told R ichar dson that Cuevas admitted that the touching was “sexual,” and that Cuevas was “ sorry that he did it.” At15

ano the r p oin t in

the re c or din g , in

re sp onse to a qu est ion

fr om S a bin o in wh ic h Sa

bin o c le arl y

is ref err ing to the f

emale se x ual org an and is a ppare ntly asking Cuevas whe re he touched M.B ., Cuevas can be seen g rabbinghis crotch a rea . Fur thermore , i n i t s closing a rg ument, the State re fer

red
re pe a te dly

to C ue va s’ s statem ent s and his a c tio ns on

the DV D, no t to the unre c or de d s tate me nts about which Sabino testified. On this re cord, w e ca nn o t co n clude that the admission of the
unrec orded state ments had a substantial a nd injurious effe ct or influenc e in deter mining the jury ’s
ve rd ic t. See W

oods , 152 S.W .3d at 119 (fi nding no ha rm when othe r evide nce suppor ted jury ’s
ve rd ic t) ; Nonn , 117 S.W .3d at 8 8 3 (hol ding that properly admitted evidenc e of guilt is one fa ctor to b e c on sid e re d w he n p e rf or min g ha rm ana ly sis un de r R

ule 44 .2 (b )) ; Mo til la v . S

tate , 78 S.W .3d 35 2, 35 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ) ( ha rm ana ly sis inc lud e s w he the r S tate e mph a size d e rr or in i ts closing argument).

We overrule Cuevas’s sole issue.
CO NC LU SION We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: Jul y

9, 2009 Do Not Publish