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

NO. 03-05-00203- CR

The St at e of Te xa s, App e lla nt

v. Jam es David Gar ner, Appellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAY S COUNTY NO. 70,224 , HO NORAB LE HO WARD S. WARNER II, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Th e State app e a ls a

n o rd e r g ra

nti nga pp e lle e Jame s D a vid

Ga rn e r’ s mo tio n to suppress stateme nts he made to a police off

icer
. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A n n . art. 44.01(a)(5) (West Supp. 2005). The State asser ts that the trial court err ed by findingGar

ner’ s statements to be involuntary . We ag ree that the statements we re voluntarily made, but conc lude that the trial c ourt’s
or de r s ho uld

ne ve rt he le ss b e a ff

ir me d in pa rt
. When revie wing a trial c ourt’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we de fer to the court’s fac tual deter

minations but review de novo the cour t’s application of the law to the fa cts. Guzman
v . Stat e , 9 55 S.W. 2d

85 , 8 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). We r e vie w the e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t favor able to the c ourt’s ruling and, if the c ourt did not make expli cit finding s of fac t, w e assume that the cour t made finding s that are supported by the re cord a

nd buttress its c onclusion. Carmouche v

. Sta te , 1 0 S. W.3 d 3 23 , 3 27 -2 8 ( Te x. Cr im. App
. 20 00 ). We w ill su sta in t he c ourt ’s or de r i f i t is2

rea sonably

supported by

the rec ord and corr ect on any theory of law a pplicable to the c ase. W

illover
v . S tat e , 70 S.W. 3d 84 1, 84 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ); Sta te v . R os s , 3 2 S. W. 3 d 8 5 3 , 8 5 5
- 5 6 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Ro me ro v . S tat e , 800 S.W .2d 539, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Depa rtment of Public Safety

Trooper Dorinesha

L ivingston wa s dispatched t o the
scene of a one -ca

r acc ident. Ba sed on her observations a nd training , L ivingston dete rmined that the vehicle ha d been tr avelingat an unsa fe spe ed wh en i t s t ru ck a gua rdra il. The driver , Gar

ner, w as be ingtr e a te d b y

pa ra me dic s. Ga

rn e r’ s e lbo w a

nd ank le we re br ok e n, the la tte r so se ve re ly that hi s foot and a nkle wer e later

amputated. L ivingston testified that she spoke to G arne r briefly at the ac cident sce ne. Ga rner ’s ey es we re bloodshot and his spe ech was slurred, and L ivingston noticed an e x tremely strong odor of alc oholic bever ag e. Ga rner told the trooper that he had sw erve d to miss a deer, but L ivingston
sa id that sh e saw no e vid e nc e of thi s. L ivi ng sto n a sk e d Ga rn e r if he ha d be e n dr ink ing
. S he s a id he told her that he had c onsumed three beer s ear lier that day
.

About one hour later, L ivin g ston approac hed Ga rner at the hospital while he w as lyingon a tr e a tme nt t a

ble and re c e ivi ngme dic a l a tte nti on . Th e tr oo pe r k ne w that G arn e r w a s in

pa in
and a ssume d th a t he wa s un de r the inf lue nc e of so me kin d of me dic a tio n. She a sk e d h im h is n a me
and bi rt h d a te to d e te rm ine wh e the r h e wa s c oh e re nt. Satis fi e d b y his ans we rs that he wa s, L ivi ng sto n r e a d G arn e r h is Miranda rig hts, rec eiving an af firmative r esponse e ach time she asked h i m if he unde rstood. See M iranda v. Arizona , 3 8 4 U
. S. 4 3 6 ( 1 9 6 6 )
. Sh e th e nr e a d th e s tatuto ry
wa rn ing re qu ir e d wh e n a sk ing fo r a blo od sp e c ime n, c omm on ly re fe rr e d to a s the DI C- 24 fo rm , which amongother thing s informs the subject that he is under ar rest. See Tex. Tr ansp. Code Ann. § 724.015 (West Supp. 2005). Garne r did not understand this war ning. L ivingston testified, “ Ikept3

re a din g that th ingov e r a

nd ov e r a nd ov e r and he sa id h e did no t un de rs tand . So Ig a ve it t o h im t o
rea d it and he still said he didn’t understand it.” G arne r re fused to g ive a spe cimen. L ivingston then asked G arne r what he had be en drinking . She testified that he t o l d h er, “Ihad thre e mar g aritas betwee n four a

nd five p.m. Ga

rner also stated he ha d two or three beer s at an unknown time.” Trooper L i v i n gston testified that she wante d to arre st Garne r at the hospital, but “tec hnically

he wa sn’t under a

rre st beca use I couldn’t ar

rest him” in l ight of his phy sical condition. She e xpla ine d, “ He wa s in cus tod y . At that poin t in tim e I did n’ t put the ha

nd c uf fs on him be c a us e he wa s in ex treme pa in. I went and spoke t o one of the admit ting doctors and they said they wer e g oin g to a dmi t hi m th a t ni g ht, so ob vio us ly Iwa sn ’t g oin g to t hr owha nd c uf fs on him . I ha d to ta lk to A PD t o s e e wh e n the y wo uld re le a se him . T he ve ry

ne xt day the y we re n’ t g oin g to r e le a se him beca use I g uess he ha d had surg ery or something like that.” Ga rn e r t e sti fi e d th a t he re me mbe re d th e a c c ide nt b ut d id n ot r e me mbe r s pe a kin g to L ivi ng sto n at th e sc e ne . H e did re me mbe r s pe a kin g to t

he tr oo pe r a

t th e ho sp ita l:
Ireme mber at the point in ti me when she was try ing to talk to m e they

wer e trying to fig ure out my foot, so there was a doctor at one end of

the bed that pulled—they we re tr y ingto pu ll thi s fo ot and re se t it, wh ic h wa sn ’t g oin g to ha pp e n. An d so wh ile they wer e working on me she wa s talking to me a nd I ’m thinking—a ll I ’m thinking at that point in tim e is I ’ve g ot somebody working on this e l b o w and som ebody working on my

foot and—an d I ’m g oing, “ Okay . Yes. Ye s.” And then she finally —s h e wa s re ad ing me this pink pi ece of pape r and I said, “I can’ t—Ican’ t understand, I

can’ t hear ,” whatever

it was. I said, “Can I see this piece of pape r and try —can I just try to rea d this? I ’m not hear ing you.” So I ’m laying the re a nd I ’m looking a nd Ijust said, “Ican’ t do this. I ’m sorry .”
Gar ner a dded, “[M]y

ankle wa s broken at that point in s even places and somebody is tugg ing on that foot on one e nd and someone is ta lking in your ear up here , y ou’re not r eally paying muc h attention.”The suppre ssion moti on also cha lleng ed the a dmissibi lity of Ga rner ’s hospital rec ords. At the 1 hear ing, Gar

ner’ s attorney

conce ded that the r ecor ds were admissible. I n light of this conc ession, the c ourt ov e rr ule d th e mot ion

to s up pr e ss w ithre g ard

to t he re c or ds
. 4 He r emember ed telling the office r that he had three beer s that day , but did not r emember telling he r that he ha d c on su me d ma rg ari ta s. Neither party offe red a rg ument at the conclusion of this testimony , and the c ourt took the motion to suppress under a dvisement. Two day s later, the c ourt wrote a l etter to c ounsel telling the m th a t th e mot ion

wa s g ra nte d w ith re sp e c t to Ga

rn e r’ s state me nts to L ivi ng sto n. Th e c ourt did 1 not make for

mal finding s of fac t, but the letter to counse l stated that “since the patient/def endant wa s
un de r p a in a

nd me dic atio n, a

nd do e s n ot r e c a ll t he con ve rs a tio n, Ia m su pp re ssi ngany

state me nts made by him at the scene and the hospital.” Am on g oth e r g ro un ds , G arn e r’ s motio n to su pp re ss a lle g e d th a t hi s st a te me nts to L ivin gston were not “conse nsual.” Construing this as a cha lleng e to the voluntarine ss of the
s t a t e m e n t s , t h e S t a t e u r g e s t h a tG ar n e r ’ s s t a t e m e n t s t o t h e t r o o p e r w e r e n o ts h o w nt o b e i n v o l u n t a r y. The test for

voluntariness is whether the statement wa s the prod u ct of a n essentially

fre e and unconstraine d choice by its maker. State v. Terrazas , 4 S.W .3d 720, 723 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (q u o t i n g Sc hn e c k

lot h v . B us tam on te , 412 U.S. 218, 225 (1973))
. The State a rg ues that there is no
e vid e nc e of

po lic e c oe rc ion

or oth e r o ff

ic ia l ov e rr e a c hin g so a s to re nd e r G arn e r’ s st a te me nts involuntary
. Se e Al

v arad o v . S tat e , 912 S.W .2d 199, 211 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The State relies on the opinion in Pe rry v . S tat e , 158 S.W .3d 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). In that case , a prosec ution f or capital murder, the defe ndant confe ssed to a police of fice r at the hospital where he wa s being treated following an automobile acc ident that ended a high- speed5

police cha se. Id . at 439. The medical evidenc e was that Perry ’s arm was cut to the bone, and he had
a larg e knot on the back of his head. Id . at 443 -4 4. Pe rr y te sti fi e d th a t he ha d b e e n d ri nk inghe a vil y and taking pil ls, and that his arm “ hurt pretty bad.” Id
. at 445. On appea l, Per ry complained of

the trial court’ s ref

usal to instruct the jury

not to consider his confe ssion if it was g iven involuntarily as
a re sult of intox ication and illness re sulting fr om the loss of blood. Id . at 446. The court of cr iminal appea ls held t h at “t h e evidence of a ppellant’s intox ication and injury does not raise any constitutional vol u n t ar i n es s issues beca use this evidence does not involve any police coe rcion or other off icial over rea ching .” Id
. I n light of the holding in Pe rry , w e a g r e e w i t h t h e S t a t e t h a tG ar n e r ’ s i n j u r y, int oxic a tio n, and

me dic ati on , and his in a

bil ity to r e me mbe r s ome of

the state me nts he a lle g e dly made, do not constitute evide nce of police over

rea ching or coe rcion so as to support a fi n d ing of inv olu nta ri ne ss. As su min g thi s w a s th e ba sis fo r t he tr ia l c ourt ’s su pp res sio n o rd e r, we mus t
never theless sustain the orde r if it is reasona bly supported by

the re cord a

nd corr ect on any

other theory of law a ppli ca b le to the ca se. W illover , 7 0 S. W.3 d at 84 5; Ro ss , 32 S.W .3d at 855-56; Ro me ro , 800 S.W .2d at 543.

Viewingthe evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the suppre s s i on order , we f ind no leg al basis for suppr essing any statements Gar

ner ma de at the sc ene of

the ac cident. Ga

rner was not at that time under a

rre st or in custody , and ther efor e neither Miranda n o r ar t i c l e 3 8
. 2 2 a

p p l y. Te x. Cod e Cr i m . P r o c . A n n . art
. 3 8
. 2 2 ( W e s t2 0 0 5 )
. A v o l u n t ar y , n o n c u s t o d i a l , o r a l s t a t e m e n tis admissible at trial. State v. W aldrop , 7 S.W .3d 836, 839 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.). We rea ch a d if

f e r e nt c o nclusion, howeve r, with reg ard to a ny statements Gar

ner ma de at the hospital. The e vidence , viewed in the lig ht most favorable to the court’s or der, shows that6

these ora l statements were the product of custodial interrog ation and hence inadmissible under the terms of a rticle 38.22, sec tion 3. Tex . Code Crim. Proc. Ann. ar t. 38.22, § 3. Custodial interr og ation is que stioning initiated by a law enfor ceme nt of fice r af ter a person ha s b ee n t ak en into custody or otherw ise deprive d of fr eedom of action in any

signific ant way . Ra mi re

z v. S tat e , 105 S.W .3d 730, 740 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.) (quoting Miranda , 38 4 U.S
. at 44 4). A p e rs on is i n c us tod

y if , und e r t he c ir c ums tanc e s, a

re a so na ble pe rs on

wo uld be lie ve that hi s f

re e do m of mov e me nt wa s re str a ine d to the de g re e a sso c ia te d w itha fo rm a l arr e st. Do wth itt v . S tat e , 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, 322-23 (1994))
. The court of criminal appea ls has identified four g ener al situations which may constitute custody , one of wh i ch is when the re is proba ble ca use to arr est and the la

w enfor ceme nt o ff

i ce r d o es not tell the suspect that he is fr ee to lea ve. Id . at 255. The of

fice r’s knowledg e of probable cause must be manifested to the suspe ct. Id
. Custody is e stablished if the manifestation of pr obable c ause, c o mb in e d w it h o th e r c ir c umstances, would lea d a re asonable person to b e lie ve that he is und e r r e str a int to t he de g re e a sso c ia te d w ithan a rr e st. L ivingston had spoke n to Gar ner at the s cene of t he accident and noticed his slurred speec h, bloodshot ey es, and strongodor of alcoholic bevera g e. Under the circumstances, the trooper had proba ble ca use to believe that Garne r wa s g uilty of an of fense involving the ope ration of a motor vehicle in a

public place wh i l e int ox icated. L ivingston’s knowle dg e of pr obable c ause w as manifested to Ga

rner when she rea d to him, more than once , the statutory DI C-24 war

ning inf orming h i m t h a th e w a s u n d e r

ar r e s t
. A l t h o u g h L i v i n g s t o nt e s t i f i e d t h a tG ar n e r w a s n o t“ t e c h n i c a l l y”
arr ested, he r subjective be lief is irrele vant. Id
. at 254. We conclude that under the circumstanc es shown, a re asonable person in Ga rner ’s pos ition would believe that he wa s under r estraint to the7

deg ree associate d with an arrest. Se e Not tin gh am v . S tat e , 90 8 S. W.2 d 5 85 , 5 88 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 95 , n o p e t.) ; Be llv . S

tat e , 881 S.W .2d 794, 800 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] , pet. re f’d) ; State v. W

illiams , 814 S.W .2d 256, 259-60 (Te x . App.—Austin 1991), aff’d , 8 3 2 S.W .2d 52, 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Asking G arne r at the hospital whether he had been drinki ng was, unde r the circ umstances, a

question rea sonably

likely to elicit an incriminating response and henc e interrog ation. Se e Rh od

e Is lan d v . I

nn is , 4 46 U. S. 2 91 , 3 00 -0 1 ( 19 80 ); Ramirez , 105 S.W .3d at 741. Al tho ug h G arn e r w a s a dv ise d o f h is r ig hts be fo re he wa s que sti on e d at the ho sp ita l, th e r e is n o e v id e n c e th a t h is s tate me n ts to L iv in g s to n a t th e h o s p it a l w e r e r e c o r d e d a s r e qu ir e d by statute. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 38.22, § 3. No exception to the rec ording require ment was shown by t h e S t at e. The ref ore, the trial court pr operly order ed the suppre ssion of these ora l state me nts
. The trial c ourt’s suppre ssion order is af firmed with re g ard to Ga

rner ’s statements at the hospital and re verse d with rega rd t o Garner’ s statements at the sce ne of the acc ident, and the
c a us e is r e mand e d to the tr ia l c ourt fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s.

_____________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Affir med in Part; Reverse d and Remande d in Part Filed: January

26, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh