NO. 07-08 -015 2-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D APR IL1, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ JOHN W AYNE JACKSON, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 84 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HU T CHI NS ON COU NT Y; TH NO . 100 36; H ON ORABLE W ILLIA M D. SM ITH, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, John W ay ne J ack son, w as conv icted b y a j u ry of ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t of

a chi ld and i ndece ncy

of a c hil d by

co ntact. H e recei v ed respecti v e s entenc es of thir ty-fiv e y ears and tw enty ye ars confinementto ru n c oncur re ntl y . In a si ng le poi nt ofSee M ir anda v. Ar

i z ona , 38 4 U
. S
. 43 6, 86 S
. C t . 16 02 , 16 L. E d.2d 69 4 (19 66 ). 1 2 er ro r, Appel lan t c ontends the tr ial co urt er re d i n it s deter minat ion that his co nfessi on was v olu ntar y . W e aff ir m. Back ground On O cto ber

11, 2007, the H utc hin son Cou nty Grand J ur

y i ndi cte d Appe ll ant for ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d and ind ecency w it h a c h il d by

co ntact. On Oct ober 24, 200 7, Ap pellan t f iled a m otion to suppress his confession beca use h is statem ent s w ere involu ntar

y , i. e. , c oerced and ent ic ed. On Nove m b er 28, 2 007 , the trial court held a su ppre ssion he aring on App ellant ’s moti on. D e tecti v e J erod C ar r w as the s ole w it ness . Det ect iv e C ar r tes ti fied th at, on Octob er 4, 200 7, he w entto App ellant ’s house shortly before 5:0 0 p.m . and arrested him pursuantto a war ra nt. Appel lan t was nin eteen y ears o ld a n d i ndi cat ed he had s moked ma rihuan a e a rl ie r th at da y . W hen they arri v ed a t the police stat ion, h e w as giv en h is Mi ra nda ri gh t s . Fro m t h e t im e o f h is a rre s tt h ro u gh b o o k in g, h e c ri e d o f f a n d o n . I n it ia ll y, 1 he deni ed any

w ro ng doi ng , howev er , after l ess than an h our

of q uest ion ing , he admitted he had sex ual ly

assaul ted the v icti m. After his admiss ion , Detecti v e Car r pl aced him in an int er ro g ati on room and sta rt ed v ide otapi ng hi s c onfessi on at5:30 p.m. At t he ou ts e t o f

the v ide otape, D etecti v e C ar r ag ain read Ap pel lan t hi s r ig hts and ind ic ated that Appel lan t c oul d ter minat e the inter v iew at any time. Appel lan t i nit ial ed th e3

ri g hts he was g iv e n a n d s ig ned a w ri tten sta tement of his r ig hts
. He als o s ig ned a sta tement ind ic ati ng thatal l his statement s w ere v olu ntar y . Det ect iv e Car r reit erated that A p p e ll a n twa s f re e t o a n s we r h is qu e s t io n s o r n o t . I n t h e twe n ty-s e ve n m in u t e in t e rvi e w, Ap pe l l an t c on fes s ed t o s ex ua l l y a s s au l ti ng t he v i cti m. After a ps y chi atr icev alu ati on and hear ing , on Febr uar y 6 , 2 0 0 8 , Appell ant was adj udg ed c ompetentto sta nd tr ial
. On M arch 31, 2 008, Appel lan t was tr ied before the cour t and found g uil ty

of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t and ind ecency w it h a chi ld by co ntact. This appeal foll ow ed. Discus sion Ap pe l l an t c on te nd s hi s c on fes s i on w as no t v ol un ta r y be c au s e, at th e time of his sta tements , D etecti v e C ar r w as w ear ing hi s g un and Appel lan t w as sufferin g from a mental dis order , s cared, a nd c ry ing
. W e rev iew

a tr ial court ’s rul ing on a moti on to su ppress ev ide nce under a bi furcat ed s t a n d a rd o f re v iew
. Ama dor v. Sta te , 221 S.W .3d 6 66, 6 73 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007)
. The tr ial j udg e i s t he s ole tr ier of fact and jud g e of

the credi bil ity

of the w it ness es and t he weig ht to be g iv en th eir

tes ti mony . W

iede v . St ate , 214 S .W .3d 1 7, 24-2 5 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 07). Therefore, we g iv e al most total deferen ce to t he tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng s o n qu e sti ons of his tor ic al fact and appl ic ati on of l aw-t o- fa ctqu e st ions t hat t ur n on an ev alu ati on of credi bil ity and demeanor
. Am ado r, 2 2 1 S
. W
. 3 d a t6 7 3
. Ho we ve r, wh e n a p p li c a t io n o f la w-4

to- fact q uest ion s d o nottur n on the credi bil ity and demeanor

of the w it ness es, w e rev iew the trial court’s ruling s on tho se question s de nov o. Id. The st atement of the ac cus ed may be u sed in ev ide nce if i t was f re ely

and v olu ntar il y

made w it hout compul si on or pers uasi on. Tex . Code Cr im. Proc. Ann. ar t. 38.21 (V er non 200 5)
. In de ci din g w hether a sta tement w as v olu ntar y , w e consi der

the total ity

of the c irc u m sta nces i n w hic h the st atement w as obtai ned. Cr eager v. Sta te , 952 S.W .2d 852, 855 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)
. A confessi on is involu ntar y if ci rc umstan ces show

that the defendant’ s w il l w as “o v er bor ne” by pol ic e c oerci on. Id. at 856. The defendant’ s w il l may b e “ o v e r b o r n e ” i f t h e re c o rd s h o ws t h a t t h e re w a s “ o ffi c i a l , c o e rc i v e c o n d u ct of such a nature” thata s tatementfrom t he defendant was “u nli kel y to hav e been the p ro ductof an essen tially

f re e a n d u ncon straine d cho ice by its make r.” Al var ado v . St ate , 912 S.W .2d 199, 211 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1995)
. Base d o n t h e e v ide nce prov ide d at the s uppress ion hear ing , t he to tal ity of ci rc umstan ces sh ow

thatAppel lan t kno wingly and v olu ntar il y

g av e hi s s tatementafter be i ng g i v en his Mi

ra nda w ar nin g s. The record does not show thatAppel lan t was under duress or

thatD etecti v e C ar r coerced him by usi ng improper promis es or

undue physi cal or mental i nfluenc e. The in ter v iew w as re lat iv ely

sh ort, las ti ng les s than an hour , and w asT exas co ur t s hav e f ound conf essi ons t o be v ol unt ar y und erf arm or e coe r ci v e ci r cum st ances t han 2 a re fo u n d h e re . S e e G id d e n s v . S ta te , 256 S. W
. 3d 426 , 431 ( T ex. App. –W aco 2 008, pet . r ef ’ d) ( col l ect ed c as es ci t ed t he rei n). 5 not taken in abnormal ly adv erse condi ti ons. At no point did Appel lan t req uestan a ttor ney 2 or i ndi cat e tha t he w anted to t er minat e the i nter v iew
. T here is not hing inhe rently inap prop riate about the nat ure of police question ing i n thi s c ase. “ Cou rt s h av e l ong ac know led g ed th e l eg it imat e role of int er ro g ation i n the investig ation of crime.” Va squez v. Sta te , 179 S.W .3d 646 , 657 n.7 (T ex.App. –Au stin 2005) , a f f ’d , 225 S.W .3d 541 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007)
. A defendant’ s ment al condi ti on al one is not deter m in a ti ve o f t h e v olu ntar ine ss of the c onfessi on buti s o nly one factor

to be cons ide re d. Penr

y v . St ate , 903 S.W .2d 7 15, 7 44 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1995) , cer t. denied , 516 U. S. 9 77, 1 16 S. Ct . 480 , 133 L.E d.2d 408 ( 1995)
. The q uest ion becomes one of w hether the a cc used’s m e n ta l impai rmenti s s o g re at t hat i t rendered hi m in capab le of understa ndi ng the meanin g and effectof his st atement. Casias v. St ate , 452 S.W .2d 4 83, 488 (Tex.Crim.App . 197 0). Fu rther, w hile em otion al conf usion b rought abo ut by the stress of th e s it u a ti on i s rele v ant t o the v olu ntar ine ss dete rmi nati on, i t i s o nly one of the ci rc umstan ces to be c onsi dered. Lic on v . St ate, 99 S. W .3d 9 1 8 , 9 2 5- 26 ( Tex .App. –El Paso 2003, no pet.)(“ mere emoti onal is m or confusion al one w il l not rend er a c onfessi on ina dmis si ble ”)
. Appel lan t’ s d emeanor

throug hout the i nter

v iew w a s ca lm a nd l uci d. He did not app ear de lusiona l or unde r the inf luen ce of d rugs. Detect iv e Carr testif ied th at Ap pellan t’s6

fear s t e mm e d fro m “ w h a t h e h a d d o n e a n d t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s , ” n o t t h e re s u l tof mis treatment. Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in it s total ity , w e f ind the tr ial courtdid not abuse i ts discret io n in den y ing Appellan t’s mot ion to supp ress. Appe llant’s sole po int of error i s ov er ru led
. Conclusion The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.
Patr ic k A . Pi rt le Jus ti ce Do not p ubl is h.