### NUM BER 13-07- 332- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG

TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellan t,
v . LU IS AGUILA R, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 2 8th D istrict Co urt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve laT he St at e m ayapp eal an or dert hat “gran t s a m ot i on t o sup pr ess ev i dence, a conf essi on, oran 1 ad m i s s i on , i f j eo pa rdy h as n ot a t t ac he d i n t he c as e an d i f t he p ros ec uti ng a t t orn ey c ert i fi es to the tr i al co urt t hat t he a ppeal i s nott aken f ort he p ur po s e of del ayand t hat t he e v i dence, conf essi on, oradm i ssi on i s of s ub s t an t i al i m po rt an c e i n t he ca s e[. ] ” T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 44

. 01 (a)(5) ( V ern on S up p. 20 08 ).

T he i nt er v i ew bet ween Det ect i v e G ar ci a an d Agui l arwas con duct ed i n S p a n i s h

. A n E n g l i s h
- l a nguag e 2 t r ansl at i on o ft he i nt er v i ew was adm i t t ed i nt o ev i dence at t he su ppr essi on h ear i ng. I n r el ev ant par t , t he t r ansl at i on st at ed:

O ff i c e r G a rc i a : M r. A g u i l a r . . . b e fo re I ta l k to y o u . . . Agui l ar : U n- huh. O ff ic e rG a r c ia : I h a v e to g iv e yo u yo u rw a r n in g s o k a y.

* * * O ff i c e r G a rc i a : [R ]e a d m e th i s , w h a t d o e s i t s a yi n S p a n i s h re a d m e th a t. Ag u i l a r : I t say s y o u h a v e t h e r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t y o u d o n ’ t hav e t o gi v e any

st at em ent

. Any t hi ng y ou sa ycan be, can be i t s ay s and wi l l be used as ev i dence agai nst y ou i n cou r t i t say s. O ff i c e r G a rc i a : W a i t d o y o u u n d e rs ta n d th a t ri g h t? Agui l ar : Yes. O ff i cer G ar ci a: O k ay put y our i ni t i al s t her e put y our nam e her e on t op al so put y ouri ni t i al s. 2 T he St ate app eals th e trial court's orde r granting L uis Aguilar’s motion to supp ress his v ide o- tap e d s tatement s. SeeT EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 44.01( a) (5 ) (V er non Supp. 2008)

. By

one is sue, the Stat e asser ts the tr ial courter re d i n g ra nti ng the moti on 1 to s uppress . W e rev erse and remand. I. Backg ro und On t he mor nin g of Nov ember 5, 2006, Jo se Mo sq ueda was sta bbed t o deat h on Moha w k Streetin Corp us Christi. Ab outtw elve hours later, th e susp ect in the slay ing, Luis Aguilar, w as arrested and take n to an interview room at the Corpus Chris t i Po lice Dep artment. The i nte rvie w ro om w as eq uip ped w it h a v ide o c amera thatrecorded t he
ev ents i n the i nter

v ie w ro om. D etecti v e R . L. Garci a g av e Ag uil ar a do cument enti tl ed 2 3Agui l ar : O nl ym yi ni t i al s? O ff i cerG ar ci a: I ni t i al s okay

. W hat i s t he se cond r i ght her e? Agui l ar : You hav e t he r i ght t o hi r e an at t or ney hav e hi m pr esent wi t h y ou bef or e an d

dur i ng a what ev eri nt er r ogat i on whi ch [ si c] pea ce off i cer s d et ect i v es or a tto rn e y s fo r th e s ta te

. . . . O ff i c e r G a rc i a : O k a yp u t y o u r i n i ti a l s . Y o u d o u n d e rs ta n d th a t ri g h t? Agui l ar : U h huh. O ff i cerG ar ci a: O k ayl et ’ s go t o t he t hi r d on e. Agui l ar : I fy ou don’ t have t he m eans t o hi r e an att or neyy ou hav e t he r i ght t hat t he

c ou rt assi gn y ou o ne wi t houtpay m ent i t say s t o r epr esenty ou b ef or e an d ad v i se y ou b ef or e an d du r i ng a nyi nt er v i ew . O ff i c e r G a rc i a : D o y o u u n d e rs ta n d ? P u t y o u r i n i ti a l s a g a i n . T h e s a m e th i n g n e x t. Agui l ar : I fy ou p erm i t an y pe ace off i ceror at t or neyfo rt he st at e ask y ou q uest i ons

wi t h orw i t houty ourat t or neyre pr esent at i v es y ou st i l l hav e t he r i ght t o de ny answer i ng a nd p ut an end t o t he q uest i ons. O ff i cerG ar ci a: H er e. A g u i l a r: Y o u h a v e th e ri g h t to a n e x a m in i n g tri a l a h e a rin g i n fro n t o f a ju d g e to

det er m i ne i ft he st at e ha s eno ugh ev i dence t o hol d y ou oraccor di ng t o t he l aw orbe set f r ee wi t houtanychar ges. O ff i cerG ar ci a: D o y ou u nder st and y ourr i ght s? Agui l ar : D o y ou u nder st and y ourr i ght s, y es. O ff i cerG ar ci a: Put a ci r c l e on t he w ord y es a ci r cl e. Put y our i ni t i al s her e. O k ayputt he

d a te h e re a n d i t i s e l e v e n 5 N o v e m b e r fifth

. Agui l ar : I put11. O ff i cerG ar ci a: 11, 5. Agui l ar : 11, 5. O ff ic e rG a r c ia : 0 6 o k a y p u t yo u r n a m e r i g h t h e r e . O k a y h e r e is w h e r e it g o e s . It is L u is

A rtu ro , ri g h t? Agui l ar : Yes. A t t h e s u p p r e s s io n h e a r in g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a d m itt e d th is d o c u m e n t in to e v id e n c e a s d e f e n d a n t’s 3 exhi bi t 1. 3 “A DV ISO DE MI RA ND A,” w hic h cont ain ed th e Mi ra nda w ar nin g s in Spani sh. Ag uil ar read 4See Mir anda v. Ar

i z ona , 38 4 U

. S

. 43 6 (19 66 ). 4 Agui l ardoe s notspeci fywhat ar t i cl e orsect i on o ft he T exas Const i t ut i on t o whi ch he i s r ef er r i ng. 5 4 each w ar nin g out lou d, t old D etecti v e Garci a he understo od th e m , a n d p ut hi s i nit ial s b y each w arning. Follow ing these warnings, the docu me nt sta tes: “Entien de sus de recho s? Si __ N o __, ” w hic h means, “D o y ou unders tand y our r ig hts ? Y es__ No_

_.” Ag uil ar

ci rc led the S pani sh w ord, “ Si ,” and he puthi s i nit ial s i n the bl ank follo w ing “S i. ” After Ag uil ar and Det ect iv e Garci a s ig ned t he doc ument, Ag uil ar tol d hi m ab o u t th e s tabbi ng i nci dent. Afterwards, Ag uil ar

ag re ed to take Detecti v e Garc ia to w here he had hidden the kni fe. At thi s p oin t, the v ide otape ends. It re sta rt s w hen Ag uil ar and Det ect iv e Garci a retur n to the int er v iew room. Det ect iv e Garci a show ed Ag uil ar the kni fe, and Ag uil ar

i denti fied i t as the kni fe he use d to sta b M osq ueda. Ag uil ar w as ind icted for

M osq ueda’ s murder

by st abbi ng hi m w it h a k nife. On Febr uar y 27, 2007, defense c ounse l filed a mot ion to suppress ev ide n ce , a ss erti ng that Aguila r wa s giv en h is Mi ra nda w ar nin g s a s req uired by l aw ; howev er , he nev er made a know ing , i ntel li g ent, or

v olu ntar y w aiv er of his r ig hts as req uired by arti cl e 38.22, se cti on 3 of t he code o f

crim inal proce dure

. A guilar claim s t hathis v ideo tap ed sta tem ent s w ere therefore i nv olu ntar il y

made and any

ev ide nce obtai ned as a resul t t hereof is i nadmis si ble

. Spec ific all y , Ag uil ar

cl aims thatthe kni fe all eg edl y used in this case, it s loc ati on, and the fact th at Ag uil ar

took the pol ic e to the k nife are i nadmis si ble bec ause the e v ide nce w as obtai ned i n v io la ti o n o f arti cl es 38.22 and 38. 23 of the code of cr imi nal procedu re , t he Four th and F o u rteenth Amendments to the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on, a nd th e Tex as Con sti tuti on. 5S p e c i fic a l l y , t h e p a rti e s to l d th e tri a l c o u rt: 6 St at e: And f ort he p ur po se o ft hi s he ar i ng , I t hi nk i t wou l d be ne f i t e v er y bo dyi fwe

n a r r o w t h e i s s u e . I r e a d h i s [ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ’ s ] m o t i o n [ t o s u p p r e ss] as c o m p l a i n i n g o f th e a c tu a l M i ra n d a w a rn i n g s g i v e n to th e d e fe n d a n t [ A g u i l a r], whet hert hose wer e— act ual l y , whet her t he def endan t aff i r m at i v el ywai v ed h is r i g h t s a s g iv e n to h im b y th e d e te c tiv e . I’m n o t s u r e ifth a t is th e o n ly i ssue t hat M r . D el T or o [ def ense counsel ] i s com pl ai ni ng a bout

. I j ust want t o na r r ow down t he i ssues a nd sa v e t i m e he r e. Co u n s e l : I a g r e e , Y o u r Ho n o r . The Co u r t i s we l l a wa r e Ar t i c l e 3 8

. 2 2 , Se c t i o n 3 , t a l ks

aboutcases wher e or al st at em ent s ar e t aken and r ecor ded. And t he St at es ar e r equi r ed t o pr eser v e t hatr ecor di ng. And pr i ort o t he st at em ent bei ng gi v en o rdur i ng t he r ecor di ng, t he a r t i cl e r equi r es t hat cer t ai n war ni ngs shoul d be gi v en t o t he d ef endan t , ot herwi se known as t he M i r anda war ni ngs. I n ad di t i on, i t say s t he a ccused m ust knowi ngl y , i nt el l i gent l y , and v ol unt ar i l ywai v e an yr i ght s as set outi n t he war ni ngs. I per cei v e t hat m ycl i ent was gi v en so m e war ni ngs, Y ourH onor , or— I t hi nk t heydo m eet t he r equi r em ent s undert he st at ut e. I wi l l l et t he Cour t deci de th a t. B u t m ym a i n c o n c e rn i s w h e th e r th e re w a s a w a i v e r o f a n yo f h i s ri g h ts as r equi r ed u nder38. 22, Y ourH onor . And we ar e say i ng t her e was n o k n o w in g , in te llig e n t, o rv o lu n ta r y w a iv e ro fs u c h r ig h ts b y th e d e f e n d a n t in th i s c a s e . . . . C o u rt: A l l ri g h t. T h a t, i n e s s e n c e , i s th e i s s u e I s e e h e re . 5 On Ap ril 27 a nd 3 0, 20 07, the trial court he ld a hea ring on the mot ion to supp ress. Before the c our

t heard any ev ide nce, the S tate’ s a ttor ney and defense c ounse l ag re ed to 6
nar ro w the is sue to w hether

Ag uil ar kn ow ing ly , i ntel li g entl y , or v olu ntar il y

w aiv ed hi s r ig hts
as re q uired unde r arti cl e 38. 22 of the code of cr imi nal procedu re . II. Sta ndard of Re v iew “The j o b o f a n a p p e l l a t e c o u rt i n c a s e s ” o f mo t i o n s t o s u p p re s s e v i d e n c e “i s t o rev iew the de cision of

the lower co u rtfo r a n a b use o f discretion. ” State v

. D ixon , 206 S.W .3d 587 , 590 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06) (op. on orig. subm ission). “W e v iew the reco rd in the light mo st favorable to the t rial cou rt's co nclusion and rev erse the judgmen t only i f it is out side the z one of reason able disagreem ent .” Id .; Car m ouchev. Sta te , 10 S.W .3d 3 2 3 , 3 2 8 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 00) ; se e D e La Ros a v . St ate, 6 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 7 (T e x.6

Cr im. App. 1983) ; Mo ntgom er y v . St ate, 810 S.W .2d 372, 391 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991)( op. on reh'g ). “ W e w il l sus tai n the l ow er co urt’ s rul ing i f it is reason abl y su ppor ted b y the record and i s correct on any the ory of law app licable to the case .” Di xon, 206 S.W .3d a t 590 ; Rom er

o v . St ate , 800 S.W .2d 5 39, 543 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1990)

. “W e g iv e al most total deferenc e to a tr ial court 's ex press or impli ed deter minat ion of hist or ic al facts and rev iew de n ovothe cou rt's applicat ion of the law

. . . t o t hose facts.” Di xon , 206 S.W .3d a t 590 (ci ti n g Sta te v. Ross, 32 S .W .3d 8 53, 8 56 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ); acco rd G uz m an v. State, 955 S.W .2d 85, 88 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1997)

. “[ G]reat d eferenc e i s a cc orded t o the tr ial co urt' s d eci si on to admit or ex cl ude such ev ide nce, w hic h w il l be ov ertur ned on appeal only w here a f lagrant abu se of discretion is shown.” Del ao v . St ate , 235 S.W .3d 2 35, 2 38 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)

. “[ T]he tr ial co urt i s t he ‘ sol e and ex cl usi v e tr ier of fact and j udg e of the credi bil ity of the wi tne sses’ and the evidence presen ted at a he aring on a mo tion to supp ress, particu larly

when the m otion is base d on the volunta riness of a confession .” Id . ( footnote omitted)

. The deter minat ion of w hether a stat ement is v olu ntar y i s a mixed q uest ion of law and fact ; that is , an appl ic ati on of law to a fact q uest ion

. Gar ci a v . St ate , 15 S. W .3d 5 33, 535 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000)

. W e re v iew de nov o thos e q uest ion s not t ur nin g on c re dib il ity and demean or . Id

. In ev alu ati ng the v olu ntar ine ss of c onfessi ons, a t ri al cour t i s req uired to ex amine the total ity

of the ci rc umstan ces surroundi ng them. See A ri zona v . Fulm ina nte , 499 U .S. 279, 285- 86 ( 1991) ; Colorado v. Conn elly, 479 U. S. 157, 167 ( 1986) ; Del ao , 235 S.W .3d at 24 1; Cr

eager v. Sta te , 952 S.W .2d 852 , 856 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97).Lu i s A gu i l ar t es t i fi ed t hro ug h a sw orn i nterpre t er. 7 7 III . Su ppress ion H ear ing A. L uis Agui lar’ s T est im ony Ag uil ar , a tw enty-e ig ht- y ear-o ld El Sal v adoran nati v e, tes ti fied he can re ad and w ri te Spani sh, but he c annot re ad or w rite E n glis h

. H e has l iv ed c onti nuous ly i n the U nit ed 7 Stat es si nce September 1 8 , 2 0 0 5

. Defense co unsel sh ow ed Ag uil ar the document cont ain ing the Mi

ra nda warnings, which was a dm itted in to evidence as de fend ant ’s ex hibit 1. W hen couns el ask ed Ag uil ar to re ad the document ’s firs t parag ra ph, Ag uil ar respon ded, “You hav e the r ig ht t o remain si len t. Y ou don’ t hav e to g iv e any st atement. An ythi ng y ou say can b e use d against you, as evidence against y ou in court.” He testif ied th at he told Detect iv e Garci a h e u n d erstoo d this rig ht. W hen coun sel asked Aguilar w hatthe f irst parag ra ph meant , he re pli ed: A. That I don’ t hav e to tal k i n c our t. I hav e to re main si len t. Q. That you hav e to re main si len t? A. Yes. Q. Or

does i t s ay

thaty ou may

remain si len t? A. Yes. Q. And w hat d id that si g nify or mean t o you? A

. I d o n ’tkn o w. Q. Do y ou k now

w hat t hat mean t w hen i t s aid , i n a c our t? A. No. Q. W hy

di d you te ll the off ic er that y ou understo od w hat y ou had re ad?8

A

. I d id n ’tkn o w. Q. Y ou di dn’ t k now w hat? A. I di dn’ t k now

w hat was g oin g on. W hen c ounse l ask ed Ag uil ar to re ad th e doc ument’ s s econd p a ra graph, h e re spond ed, “You hav e the ri g ht to hire an attor ney .” He tes ti fied th at he understo od w hat thi s mean t. W hen couns el ask ed him w hat itmeant, he repl ied , “ It means that I had the rig ht to ask for an at torne y if I did n’t ha v e the mon ey to get one .” W hen coun sel asked Aguilar to re a d the third paragraph , he rep lied, “If y ou d on’t hav e the means to hire an attor ney , you hav e the r ig ht for the Cou rtto find y ou one w it hout any pay ment s o tha t he can re presenty ou before a n d dur ing any i nter v iew .” W hen
couns el ask ed Ag uil ar , “ W hat did y ou unde rs tand itto mean?” , he sai d, “ I don ’tkn ow .” Howev er , Ag uil ar

tes ti fied he w as famili ar w it h t h e co nceptof w hat i t means to hire a l awy er , bu t he d en i ed k no w i ng h ow t o g eta c ou rt to a s s i g n a l awy er t o hi m. W hen coun sel asked Aguilar to read the next paragraph, h e replied , “If y ou p ermit for any off ic ial —any

peac e off ic er

or att or ney from t he St ate t o as k you q uest ion s w it hout an attor ney

bei ng present , you s ti ll h a ve the r ig ht t o s top t he ans w ers a nd s top— deny answering, and pu t an en d to the que stions. ” He testif ied tha t he did notkn ow w hatthis
me ant . W hen coun sel a s k ed h im, “W hatdo you think it me ans? ”, he replied , “I don’t k no w .” At th atp oi nt , c ou ns el a s k ed h i m: Q

. W h e n i t s a y s h e re t h a t i f y o u p e r mi t a n y o ffi c i a l o f t h e p e a c e —w hat does that mean to y ou, o ff ic ial of the p eace? A. A police o f

f icer. Q. And w here i t s ay s, or att or ney of the S tate, w hat i s t hat t o you?9

A. Lik e an attor ney l ik e you. Q. Do y ou th ink

I’ m an attor ney

for t he St ate? A

. No , I d o n ’tkn o w. Q. But the p aper

sa y s, or an a ttor ney

of the S tate, co rrect ? A. Yes. Q. [W ]ha t doe s thatmea n to you, tho se w ords? A

. I d o n ’tkn o w. Q. W hen it says here that y ou hav e the ri g ht to sto p the q uest ion ing , do y ou kn ow w hatthatmea ns? A. No. Q. Do y ou k now

w hat q uest ion s i t’ s referr ing to? A. Yes. At this jun cture, co unse l to ld the co urt he tho ught the interpret ation “was a little bit off” and repeated the q uest ion : Q. W hen you read t hat, do y ou know w hat q uest ion s t hat p arag ra ph w as re ferr ing to? A. Ma y be. Q. Y ou’ re not sure? A. No. Q. W hatdo you think it me ans? A. W ell , may be I thi nk w hat it meant, that if the pol ic e off ic er caug ht me, tha t I didn’t h ave to answer. Q. So you unde rs tood that back then ? A. Yes.10

W hen c ounse l ask ed Ag uil ar to re ad th e l ast parag ra ph, he re pli ed, “You hav e the ri g ht t o hav e an ex amining tr ia l. ” H e tes ti fied th at he di d notkn ow w hat t hat mean t. C ou ns el t he n to l d hi m: Q. Co n ti n u e re a d in g. A. A hear ing before a j udg e. Q. Do y ou k now

w hat t hat i s? W hat d oes that mean to y ou? A. I t hin k t hat i s w hat we are doi ng r ig ht no w . Q. Con ti nue. A. To deter mine if the Stat e has enoug h ev ide nce. Q. Do y ou u nde rstand w hatthatmea ns? A. Yes. Q. Con ti nue. A

. To d e t a i n y o u a n d c o n t i n u e a c c o rd i n g t o t h e l a w , o r t o be s et free acc ordin g —or

to be s et fre e w it hout any ch arg e. Q. Do y ou unde rs tand w hat t hat mean t? A. Yes. Aguilar stated thatw hen he initialed and signed the docu me nt, no one asked him if he wanted to g iv e up any r ig hts thathe h ad. W hen couns el ask ed hi m, “ Di d you k now at that ti me that if y ou si g ned that document , it mig ht mean that y ou w ere giving up
w hat ever r ights you h ad u nde r the law here in the Unite d Sta tes? ”, he replied , “No, I didn’t kn o w.” Ag uil ar

ans w ered “ No” w hen c ounse l ask ed, “ So di d you feel that y ou had to
answer the q uest ion s?” Ag uil ar tes ti fied he answered the q uest ion s becau se he wanted to. H ow ev er , he sai d tha t atthe ti me he tal ked to Dete cti v e Garci a, he di d notundersta nd11

w hatthe do cum entsaid. Coun sel f urthe r q uest ione d Aguilar as follows: Q

. W h a t d o yo u t h i n k wo u l d h a ve h a p p e n e d if yo u t o ld h im [ De t e ct ive Garci a], no, I don’ t want t o putmy i nit ial s t here? A

. I d o n ’tkn o w. Q. Did tha t tho ught cross y our min d w hen he told y ou to put y our initials there? A. Y es. Q. W hat were you th ink ing at that poi nt? A. He jus t tol d me to re ad it and for me to put my ini ti als on the li ttl e l ine

. Q. But did n’t he als o ask y ou if y ou understo od as y ou w ere putti ng y our ini ti als on t here? A. Yes. Q. And di d you i ndi cat e to him that you unde rs tood? A. Yes. Q. But now

y ou are tel li ng us thaty ou di dn’ t real ly understa nd? A. Yes, I just read it and I put m y initials. On cross -e x a mi n a t i o n , A g u i l a r t e s t i fi e d t h a th e i s a b l e t o re a d a n d w r i t e S p a n i s h, understa nd w hat h e reads in Spani sh, and ex press hi msel f in S pani sh. H e tes ti fied th at h e w a s a b le to rea d de fe n d a n t’ s e xhib it1 a n d t h a t h e pl a ce d hi s in it ia ls b y ea ch w a rn in g, ci rc led “S i” w here the document ask ed if he unde rs tood his r ig hts , and w ro te hi s i nit ial s o n the l ine foll ow ing the w ord “S i. ” W hen the Stat e’s attor ney ask ed him, “A nd so by that , you
w ere say ing yo u unders tood thes e ri g hts , cor re ct? ”, he repl ied , “ Y es. ” The St ate’ s a ttor ney question ed h im as follows: Q. And you di d understa nd w hat you read, did n’ty ou?12 * * * A. No. Q. Then w hy

di d you s ay

thaty ou di d understa nd? A

. I d o n ’tkn o w. Q. Are y ou s ay i ng t ha t y ou u nd ers to od t he words b uty ou d i dn ’ t rea lly understa nd w hat i t meant ? A. Yes. Q. But y ou def initely told Detective Garcia that you did un dersta nd the se ri g hts , c or re ct? A. Yes , th a t I u n d e rst o o d th e p a p e r, b u t I d id n ’t kn o w wha t I was d o in g. He tes ti fied th at he tol d D etecti v e Garci a he did kn ow w hat h e was doi ng , t hat h e
w as w illing to talk to him , tha t nob ody told him w hatto say, and tha t Detect iv e Garcia did not force him to t alk

. The Stat e’s att or ney co nti nued: Q

. M r . Ag ui l ar , i f D e t e ct i v e G a rc i a d i d n o t fo rc e y ou t o g i v e hi m a sta tement, woul d you ag re e w it h me t hat you g av e tha t s tatement vo lu n t a ri ly? A. Yes. Q. And y ou gave that st a t e m e n tvo lu nta rily af ter read ing [de fend ant ’s ex hib it1]? A. Yes. Q. And af

ter telling Detect iv e Garcia tha t y ou u n d e rs t o od everything in [defendant’ s e x hib it1]? A. Yes. Q. And i n [ d e fe n d a n t’ s e xhib it1 ] you to ld Det ect iv e Garci a tha t y ou understo od w hat your

r ig hts w ere, c or re ct? A. Yes.13 * * * Q. W hatI ’m askin g y ou i s , on c e y ou s ta rte d te l l i ng D et ecti v e Garcia abo ut w hat had hap pen ed earlier tha t mo rning betw een y ou a nd Jo se Mo sq ueda, at an y

poi nt i n your

ow n mi nd di d you want t o s top? A. No. Q. Di d you want t o tel l Det ect iv e Garci a w hat h ad happ ened? A. Yes. Ag uil ar tes ti f ie d h e v olu ntar il y tol d D etecti v e Garci a he had hi dden t he k nife and
v olu ntar il y

took hi m t o t h e k n ife’s l ocat ion

. At n o ti me di d he tel l Det ect iv e Garci a he
w anted to t alk

to a l awy er . The Stat e’s att or ney co nti nued q uest ion ing hi m as follo ws: Q

. Mr

. A g u i l a r , a ft e r re a d i n g t h i s d o c u me n t , d e fe n d a n t ’ s e x h i b i t 1, y ou understo od w hat i t s aid , c or re ct? A. No, I did n’tundersta nd—I understa nd w hat i t was say ing , butnot w hat itco ntai ned. Q. You und erstan d the words? A. Yes, I did und erstan d t h e wo rd s ; b u tI d id n’t un dersta nd what it cont ain ed. Q. W ell, w e talked earlier abou t the fact th at you’re able to read very w ell in Spani sh. A. Yes. Q. So then can y ou ex pla in how it was th a t you w ere abl e to re ad th e w ords and notundersta nd w hat t hey meant? A. W ell , w hat had happened, I did n’t know that it w as— w hat h appened in the morni ng that day , I didn’ t think the same w ay

I’m thi nki ng r ig ht n o w. Q

. Yo u m e a n , yo u we re n ’tt h in k in g c le a rl y— A. No.W i t h r espectt o t he M ir anda r i ght s, t he St at e’ s at t or neyque st i oned D et ect i v e G ar ci a as f ol l ows: 8 Q

. So y ou had hi m r ead t he f i r st par agr aph and t hen y ou asked hi m i f he u nder st ood? A. Yes. I had hi m r ead each par agr aph or each r i ght , agai n asked hi m i f he u nder st ood

i t

. He i ndi cat ed wi t h i ni t i al s i n each and ev er yone of t hem t hat he di d un der st and. A n d th e r e is a d e a l in t h e b o tt o m t h e r e w h e r e ifs a ys - - w h e r e h e c ir c le s a n d p u t h is i ni t i al s, do y ou u nder st and y our r i ght s. And t hen we go a l i t t l e f ur t herdown, t he d at e, 11/ 5/ 06, and t he a ccused m eans Lui s Ar t ur o Agui l ar . And t hat i s hi s si gnat ur e t her e. * * * Q

. So i n t he i nt er v i ew r oom pr i or t o aski ng M r . Agui l ar any quest i ons and pr i or t o ge t t i ng

h i m t o sp e a k ab o u t t h e ac t u a l cr i m e t h a t he wa s be i n g i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r , d i d y o u m a ke s u re th a t h e w a s a w a re o r a t l e a s t h e re a d th a t h e h a d th e ri g h t t o re m a i n s i l e n t? A. Yes, he di d. Q

. A n d th a t h e h a d th e r ig h t n o t t o m a k e a s ta te m e n t a t a ll a n d th a t a n y s ta te m e n t c o u ld

b e u s e d a g a in s t h im a t t r ia l? A

. Ye s , s i r. Q

. And y ou wer e s ati s fi ed by t he f act t hat he was abl e t o r ead t hat back t o y ou a nd a ff i rm a ti v e l ys a i d th a t h e u n d e rs to o d i t? 14 Q

. — b e c a u s e o f

wh a th a d h a p p e n e d e a rl ie r i n t h e d a y? A. Yes. Q. But nor mall y

y ou woul d be abl e to understa nd w hat i t meant , cor re ct? A. Yes. Q. If y ou were thi nki ng more c lea rl y , c or re ct? A. Yes. Ag uil ar tes ti fied th at he w anted to t ell D etecti v e Garci a w hat h e had done an d tha t he w an te d to c on fes s t o hi m. B. Testimony of Detect ive R. L. Garcia Detect iv e Garcia te stif ied th at w hile in the intervi ew room , he “w entov er his Ag uil ar ’s ] M iranda r ig hts i n Span is h” and that Ag uil ar indi cat ed to him that he und ersto od h is ri ght s. Det e ct ive G a r cia id e n ti f ie d de fe n d a n t’ s e xhib it1 a s t h e Sp a n ish -la n gua ge

8A. Yes. Q

. And he was a b l e t o i n d i c a t e t o y o u t h a t h e u n d e r s t o o d t h a t h e h a d t h e r i g h t t o a

l aw y er? A. Yes. Q

. And t hat he had a r i ght t o t hi s l awy er t o be pr esent t o adv i se hi m pr i or t o and dur i ng anyque st i oni ng? A. Yes. Q

. And y ou wer e sat i sf i ed t hat M r . Agui l ar under st ood t hat i f he was unabl e t o em pl oy a l awy ert hat he coul d ha v e a l awy erapp oi nt ed t o adv i se hi m pr i ort o an d du r i ng a ny quest i oni ng? A. Yes, I was. Q

. A n d y o u w e re s a ti s fie d th a t M r. A g u i l a r u n d e rs to o d th a t h e h a d a ri g h t t o te rm i n a te t he i nt er v i ew at anyt i m e? A. Yes. Q

. And y ou w ere s ati sf i ed t hat beca use o ft he f act t hat he was abl e t o r ead t hese s ta te m en t s ba c k t o y ou i n S pa ni s h an d i nd i c ate t o y ou t ha t he di d un de rstan d

. Is th a t ri g h t? A

. T h a t’ s c o rr e c t. Q

. A n d in a d d itio n to in d ic a tin g v e r b a lly th a t h e u n d e r s to o d th e m , h e p la c e d h is in itia ls

b e s i d e e a c h o f th o s e o n th a t d o c u m e n t, d e fe n s e e x h i b i t 1

. Is th a t c o rr e c t? A

. T h a t’ s c o rr e c t. Q

. A n d i n a d d i ti o n to th a t h e w a s a b l e to re a d th e l i n e th a t s a i d h e u n d e rs to o d h i s ri g h ts a n d h e c i rc l e d , s i , o r ye s , a n d a l s o p l a c e d h i s i n i ti a l s . Is th a t c o rr e c t? A

. T h a t’ s c o rr e c t. O n r e- di r ect exam i nat i on, t he St at e’ s at t or neyasked D et ect i v e G ar ci a: Q

. D etec t i ve G arc i a, d i d y ou coveral l t he war ni ngs r equi r ed u nderAr t i cl e 38. 22,

M i ra n d a w a rn i n g s w i th th e D e fe n d a n t? A. Yes, I di d. Q

. And he i ndi cat ed t o y ou a ff i r m at i v el yt hat he under st ood each oft hem ? A. H e di d, t wi ce. Q

. H e d i d s o ve rb a l l y , c o rr e c t? A. Yes. 15Q

. A n d h e d i d s o b yp l a c i n g h i s i n i ti a l s b ye a c h o f th e ri g h ts th e m s e l v e s , c o rr e c t? A

. T h a t’ s c o rr e c t. Q

. And al so aff i r m at i v el y by ci r cl i ng y es t o t he l i ne t hat sai d y ou under st and y ourr i ght s, c o rr e c t? A

. T h a t’ s c o rr e c t. 16 Mi ra nda w ar nin g s that he g av e to Ag uil ar . Det ect iv e Garci a al so tes ti fied Ag uil ar “ did not appear to be unde r the i nfluenc e of anythi ng ” and t hat A gui la r w as nei ther co erced, threatened , nor

promis ed a n yth ing i n retur n for his co nfessi on. He sta ted Ag uil ar nev er a s k e d fo r a n a t t o rn e y a n d d id n o ta s kt o t e rm in a t e t h e in t e rvi e w. Aft e r t h e in t e rvi e w, Ag ui l ar a g ree d to t ak e hi m t o w he re he h ad h i dd en t he k nife. They w en t to t he c r i me s c e n e wh e re A gu il a r po in t e d o u tt h e d ire ct io n h e we n ta f t e r t h e m u rd e r. He t o ld De t e ct ive Garci a he had t hrow n the kn ife “ in a manhol e” and took hi m to t he manhol e, w here the kni fe w as re cov ered. After Det ect iv e Garc ia retr iev ed the knife, he took Ag uil ar bac k t o the interview room . He restarte d the v ideo tap e an d sho w ed Aguilar the knife. Aguilar said it was t h e kn ife he ha d us e d in th e st a b b in g. After hear ing the ev ide nce and c ounse l’ s a rg uments , t he tr ial cour t g ra nted the moti on to su ppress , s tati ng , “ T h e C o u rthas co nsi dered th e c ase law and the s tatut e involv ed. The Co urt i s g oin g to g ra nt t he moti on to su ppress .” O n M ay 16, 2007, the t ri al
cour t si g ned the “O RD ER ON DE FEN DA NT’ S MO TION TO SU PPR ESS, ” w hic h st ated, in relevant part: “ Base d on the evidence presen ted , the Court f inds th at th e Defend antdid not volu ntar il y , k now in gly, a nd i ntel li g entl y w aiv e hi s r ig hts .” N o findi ng s o f factor conc lus ion s o f law

si g ned by

the tr ial co urt were fil ed i n thi s c ase. IV. Ap plicable Law & Ana lysis Ar ti cl e 38. 21 of the code of cr imi nal procedu re p ro vide s that “[ a] s tatementof anS e c ti o n 6 o f a rti c l e 3 8 .2 2 p ro v i d e s th a t o n l y“v o l u n ta ry” s ta te m e n ts m a yb e a d m i tte d

. See T EX
. C OD E 9 C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 38

. 22 , § 6 (Ve rno n 2 00 5).

Echoi ng t hi s di ct at e, ar t i cl e 38

. 23 of t he code of cr i m i nal pr ocedur e st at es: “ N o ev i dence obt ai ned 10 byan off i cerorot herper son i n v i ol at i on of anypr ov i si ons o ft he Const i t ut i on o rl aws oft he St at e of T exas, orof t he Const i t ut i on o rl aws oft he Uni t ed S t ates o fAm er i ca, shal l be adm i t t ed i n ev i dence agai nst t he ac c us ed on t he t ri al of an ycri m i na l ca s e.” T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 38

. 23 (Ve rno n 2 00 5).

S t atem en t s tha t h ave b ee n fou nd t o b e i nvo l un t ary un de r M ir anda or t he D ue P roc es s C l au s e w ere 11 col l ect ed i n C o lo r

a d o v . C o n n e lly , 479 U

. S. 157, 164 n. 1 ( 1986)

. T heyi nv ol v e t he cr uci al el em ent of pol i ce ov er r eachi ng a nd i nv ol v e f act scena r i os such as t he f ol l owi ng: ( 1) t he su spect was sub j ect ed t o a f our - hour i n te rr o g a ti o n w h i l e i n c a p a c i ta te d a n d s e d a te d i n a n i n te n s i v e -c a re u n i t. M incey v. Ar i z ona , 437 U

. S. 385 ( 1978) ; ( 2) t he su spect , whi l e on m edi cat i on, was i nt er r oga t ed fo r o ver ei ght een hour s wi t houtf ood, m e d i c a ti o n , o r s l e e p . G r e e n w a ldv . W is c o n s in , 390 U

. S. 519 ( 1968) ; ( 3) t he pol i ce off i cer s hel d a gun t o t he h e a d o f th e w o u n d e d s u s p e c t t o e x tra c t a c o n fe s s i o n . B e e c h e r v . A la b a ma , 389 U

. S. 35 ( 1967) ; ( 4) t he p ol i ce in te r r o g a te d th e s u s p e c t in te r m itt e n tly f o rs ix te e n d a ys u s in g c o e r c iv e ta c tic s w h ile h e w a s h e ld i n c o m m u n i c a d o i n a c l o s e d c e l l w i th o u t w i n d o w s a n d w a s g i v e n l i m i te d fo o d

. D avis v. N orth Carolina , 384 U

. S. 737 ( 1966) ; ( 5) t he su spect was he l d f orf ourday s wi t h i nadeq uat e f ood and m edi cal at t ent i on u nt i l he c o n fe s s e d

. B e c kv . P a te , 367 U

. S. 433 ( 1961) ; ( 6) t he su spect was sub j ect ed t o f i v e da y s of r epeat ed q u e s ti o n i n g d u rin g w h i c h p o l i c e e m p l o y e d c o e rc i v e ta c ti c s . C ulom be v. C onnecticut , 36 7 U

. S

. 56 8 (19 61 ); 17 acc used may be used in ev ide nce ag ain st him if it appears that the same w as freel y and
v olu ntar il y

made w it hout compul si on or persuas ion , und er

the ru les hereafter presc ri bed.” T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 38.21 (Ver non 2005). A defendant may clai m hi s o r her state me nt w as no t f reely and volunt arily m ade u nde r several d if feren t the ories: (1) article 38. 22, section 6—general volunta riness; (2) Mi ra nda v . Ar izona , a s ex pan ded in article 9 38.22, se cti ons 2 and 3; or ( 3) the Due Proces s C lau se of the F o u rteenth Amendment. Our sbour n v . St ate , 259 S.W .3d 1 59, 1 69 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008)

. A s tatementmay be involu ntar

y under one, two, or

al l three th eor ies

. Id

. A. Clai m s o f Involuntar

ine ss U nder the DuePr

oces s Clau se and M

ir anda Constitu tiona l due pro cess requires that a confes s io n m u s t have bee n v olun tarily g iv en before i t may

be a dmitted i nto e v ide nce. Michi gan v. Har

vey, 494 U .S. 344, 350 (1 990) ; Jacks on v. Den no , 378 U.S. 368, 376 ( 1964) ; Sm it h v . St ate , 779 S.W .2d 4 17, 4 27 (Te x . Crim. App

. 198 9). A confession may be involuntary under the Due Process Clau se 10
o n ly whe n th e re is po lic e o verre a ch in g. Our sbour n, 259 S.W .3d a t 169 ; see Alvarado v. 11( 7) t he suspect was hel d i ncom m uni cado f or t hr ee day s wi t h l i t t l e f ood, and t he co nf essi on was obt ai ned when

o ff i c e rs i n fo rm e d h i m th a t th e i r c h i e f w a s p re p a rin g to a d m i t a l y n c h m o b i n to th e ja i l

. Payne v. Ar kansas , 356 U

. S

. 5 60 (1 958) ; and ( 8) t he su spect was qu est i oned byr el ay s of off i cer s f ort hi r t y - si x hou r s wi t houtan o p p o rtu n i tyfo r s l e e p . Ashcraf t v. Tennessee , 32 2 U

. S

. 14 3 (19 44 ). T he Supr em e Cour t m ade t hi s cl eari n C o n n e lly , w hen i t hel d t hat i ft her e i s no pol i ce coe r ci on o r 12 ov er r eachi ng, t her e i s no due- pr ocess vi ol at i on–ev en i fa suspecti s suff er i ng f r om chr oni c schi z ophr eni a an d i s i n a p s y c h o ti c s ta te fo l l o w i n g th e “v o i c e o f G o d ” a t t h e ti m e h e c o n fe s s e s . C o lo r a d o v . C o n n o lly , 4 79 U. S. 15 7, 16 4 (19 86 ).

I n C o n n e lly , t he d ef endan t app r oached a D env erpol i ce off i cerand sai d t hat “ he h ad co m e al l t he 13 way f r om Bost on t o con f ess t o t he m ur derof M ar yAnn Jun t a, a y oung gi rl w ho m he had k i l l ed i n Denver som et i m e dur i ng N ov em ber 198 2.” C o l o r a d o v . C o n n o lly , 479 U

. S. 157 , 160 ( 1986)

. Unbek nownst t o t he 18 State , 912 S.W .2d 199 , 211 (Te x . Crim. App

. 199 9) (notin g tha t a state me nt is inv olun tary under federal due proces s “ onl y i f there was off ic ial , c oerci v e c onduct of such a na ture tha t any statem entobta ined thereb y w as un likely

to have bee n the produ ct of an esse ntially free and unconst ra ine d choic e byits maker”) ; see a lso Conn elly, 479 U.S. at 16 7 (“W e ho ld that coerci v e pol ic e acti v ity i s a nec ess ar

y predi cat e to the fin din g thata c onfessi on i s n ot ‘v olun tary’ w ithin th e me anin g of t he Due Process Clause of t he Fourte ent h Am end me nt.”). Even if a c o n fe s s io n is not th e prod uct of a me anin gfu l choice (for example , w hen it is
ma de in re s p o n s e to ha llucinatio ns or to a private person 's threat ), it i s non eth eless
v olun tary w ithin th e me anin g of the Due Proc e s s C lause abse nt som e coe rciv e po lice
a ct ivi ty. Oursbo urn , 259 S.W .3d a t 169 -7 0 ( “A bsent pol ic e mis condu ct caus all y rela ted 12 to t he c onfessi on, t here i s s impl y no basi s for

concl udi ng that anystate acto r has depr iv ed
a c ri minal d e fe n d a n t o f d u e p ro c e s s o f l a w . ” )

. Th e D u e P ro c e s s C l a u s e i s a i me d at pro te ct in g su sp e ct s f ro m po lic e ove rre a ch in g, n o t a t p ro te ct in g ind ivid u a ls f ro m th e m selves or other pr iv ate a cto rs . Id . Th e sam e is true for Mi ra nda rig hts and w aiv ers that appl y to
cus todi al- int er ro g ati on s tatement s. Id

. “ Mi ra nda protects defendants ag ain st g ov er nment
coerci on l eadi ng them to s ur re nder r ig hts protected b y

the Fi fth Amendment; i t g oes no f urthe r than th at.” Id . at170. 13po l i c e ( w ho s c rup ul ou s l y fol l ow ed t he m an da t es of M ir anda ) , t he def endan t w as appar ent l yobey i ng t he “ v oi ce ofG od” whi ch had i nst r uct ed h i m “ t o wi t hdr aw m oneyf r om t he b ank, t o bu yan ai r pl ane t i ck et , and t o f l yf r om B os t on t o D en ver. ” Id

. a t 1 61

. E ven t hough t he e v i dence showed t hat t he d ef endan t was suff er i ng f r om
“ com m and hal l uci nat i ons t hat i nt er f er ed wi t h hi s vol i t i onal abi l i t i es; t hat i s, hi s abi l i t yt o m ake f r ee a nd r at i onal choi ces” and “ he wasn' t capa bl e of m aki ng a ‘ f r ee deci si on’ t o wai v e hi s M ir anda r i ght s, ” hi s conf essi on was n o t i n v o l u n ta ry u n d e r th e F i fth A m e n d m e n t. Id

. at161
- 64, 169
- 71. 19 Thus, in deci din g w hether Ag uil ar ’s sta tements we re inv olu ntar y under the Due Proces s C lau se, i t was inc umbent o n the tr ial co urt t o det er mine w hether hi s s tatement s
w ere gi v en v olu ntar il y

or were the productof pol ic e ov er re achi ng . The ess enti al q uest ion for th e tr ial co urt t o det er mine w as “w hether [Ag uil ar's ] w il l w as ov er bor ne by the circumsta nces su rround ing the giv ing of [the ] confession [s],” Dick er son v. United S tates , 530 U.S. 428 , 434 (20 00), and o ur t ask on app eal is to d ete rmine wheth er t he trial cou rt abuse d i ts dis creti on i n resol v ing t h a t que st io n. Balenti ne v . St ate , 71 S.W .3d 7 63, 7 68 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 2). Ana lysis Here , t h e re i s n o i n d i c a t i o n e i t h e r i n t h e v i d e o t a p e o r i n t h e t e s t i mo nyat the supp ression he aring that an y o f f icer threa ten ed, co erced , or p romise d Aguilar anything i n e xc h a n ge fo r h is st a t e m e n t s . No t h in g i n t h e in t e ra ct io n b e twe e n A gu il a r a n d De t e ct ive Garci a s ug g est ed Ag uil ar's w il l w as “o v er bor ne” by th e c ircumstan ces su rroundi ng the sta te m e n ts

. D ur ing the int er v iews, Ag uil ar

w as not d epr iv ed of food, bev erag e, or the oppor tunit y t o v is itthe re stroom. Upo n examini ng the total ity of the c ircums tanc es surroun ding the sta tem ent s, w e hold Aguilar’s state me nts were not the produ ct of police overreaching. Th erefor e , t h e st ate me nts w ere no t inv olun tary und er the Due Process Cl ause. See Dick

er son, 530 U. S. a t 434 ; Our sbour n, 259 S.W .3d a t 169 ; Al var ado, 912 S.W .2d a t 211. Acc ordin g ly , the tr ial cour t abuse d i ts dis creti on i n resol v ing thi s q uest ion ag ain st the S tate.Ar t i cl e 38

. 21 o ft he co de o fcr i m i nal pr ocedur e pr ov i des, “ A st at em ent of an accused m aybe used 14 i n ev i dence agai nst hi m i fi t app ear s t hat t he sa m e was f r eel yand v ol unt ar i l ym ade wi t houtcom pul si on o r pe rsu as i on , un de r t he rul es he rea ft er pre s c ri be d.” T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . a rt. 3 8 .2 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 )..

Sect i on 2 of

ar t i cl e 38

. 22 p r ov i des: 15 N o wr i t t e n s t a t e m e n t m a d e b ya n a c c u s e d a s a r e s u l t o fc u s t o d i al i nt er r ogat i on i s adm i s s i bl e as ev i dence agai nst hi m i n an ycr i m i nal p ro c e e d i n g u n l e s s i t i s s h o w n o n th e fa c e o f th e s ta te m e n t t h a t: ( a) t he a ccused, pr i ort o m aki ng t he st at em en t , e i t her r ecei v ed f r om a m agi st r at e t he war ni ng p r ov i ded i n A rt i cl e 15

. 17 o ft hi s code orr ecei v ed fr o m th e p e rs o n to w h o m th e s ta te m e n t i s m a d e a w a rn i n g th a t: 20 B. Clai m s o f Involuntar

ine ss under Ar ticle 38. 22 The Con st it u ti o n le a ves volu n ta rin e ss cla im s b a se d on th e de fe n d a n t' s st a te of min d “to be reso lv ed b y

state laws g overning the adm ission of evi d e nce. ” Our

sbour n, 259 S.W .3d at 170. In Tex as, that state law is art ic le 38.22 of the code of cr imi nal procedu re . Id

. Ar ti cl e 38. 22 prohi bit s t he us e of oral sta tements mad e as a resul t of cu sto dia l int er ro g ati on unl ess , inter alia , an ele ctroni c re cordin g i s made of the s tatement , Mi ra nda
w ar nin g s are g iv en, a nd th e ac cus ed k now ing ly , i ntel li g entl y , and v olu ntar il y w aiv ed any ri g hts set outi n the w ar nin g s. Tur ner v. Sta te , 252 S.W .3d 5 71, 5 83 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [14th D is t.] 2008, pet. ref’d) ; see T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 38.22, § 3( a) (1 )- (2 ) (Verno n 20 05). Ar ti cle 3 8.22 is ai med at protecti ng peopl e from po li ce ov er re achi ng . Oursbo urn , 259 S. W .3d a t 172

. But secti on 6 of that a rt ic le mayal so be co n st ru e d as protecti ng peopl e from t hemsel v es becaus e the focus is upon w hether the acc used v olu ntar il y made the s tatement

. Id

. Inq uir ies aboutw hether a s tatementw as freel y and v olu ntar il y

made
w it hout compul si on or pers uasi on, or , i n the ca se of a cus todi al- int er ro g ati on s tatement , 14
w het her the suspe ct “knowi ngly , intelligently, and v olun tarily ” w aived the rights set outin
a rt icl e 38 .2 2 , s e ct io n s 2 (a ) or (3 )(a ), do no t t u r n s o l e ly on po lic e ove rre a ch in g. 15 16( 1) he has t he r i ght t o r em ai n si l ent and not m ake anyst at em ent atal l and t hat anyst at em ent he m akes m ay be used agai nst hi m athi s t r i al ; ( 2) any st at em ent he m akes m aybe used as evi dence agai nst hi m i n cou r t ; ( 3) he has t he r i ght t o hav e a l awy erpr esentt o adv i se hi m pr i ort o an d du r i ng a ny qu es t i on i ng ; (4) i f he i s un ab l e t o e m pl oy a l aw y er, h e ha s the ri gh t to ha ve a l aw y er appoi nt ed t o ad v i se hi m pr i ort o an d du r i ng a nyque st i oni ng; and ( 5) he has t he r i ght t o t er m i nat e t he i nt er v i ew at anyt i m e; and ( b) t he a c c u s e d , p r i o rto a n d d u r in g th e m a k in g o fth e s ta te m e n t, k n o w in g ly, i nt el l i gent l y , and v ol unt ar i l ywai v ed t he r i ght s set o ut i n t he war ni ng pr escr i bed bySubsect i on ( a) of t hi s sect i on. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 38

. 22 , § 2 (Ve rno n 2 00 5).

Sect i on 3 ( a) of

ar t i cl e 38

. 22 p r ov i des: 16 N o or al orsi gn l angua ge st at em ent of an ac c us ed m ade as a r esul t of cust odi al i nt er r ogat i on shal l be adm i ssi bl e agai nst t he accused i n a cr i m i nal pr oceedi ng u nl ess . . . (2 ) pr i ort o t he st at em ent butdur i ng t he r ecor di ng t he accused i s gi v en t he war ni ng i n S ubsect i on ( a) ofS ect i on 2 abov e an d t he a c c u s e d k n o w in g ly, in te llig e n tly, a n d v o lu n ta r ily w a iv e s a n y r ig h ts s e t o u t in th e w a rn i n g . . . . T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 38

. 22 , § 3 (Ve rno n 2 00 5).

S e e , e .g ., R o c h a v . S ta te , 1 6 S .W .3 d 1 , 1 9
- 2 0 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) (p r o v id in g th a t t h e tria l c o u r t's 17 ge ne ral j ury i ns t ruc t i on un de r art i c l es 38

. 21 a nd 38

. 22 co nc ern i ng vol un t ari ne s s of stat em en t su ffi c ed for j ury to c o n s id e ra n y e v id e n c e o fh is illn e s s a n d m e d i c a t i o n ; n o e r r o rin d e n yin g in s tr u c tio n th a t s p e c if ic a lly m en t i on ed i l l ne s s an d m ed i c ati on as t ha t w ou l d b e a co m m en t on t he w ei gh t of t he evi de nc e).

T h i s h a s l o n g b e e n th e c a s e i n T e x a s . S e e C a in v . S ta te , 18 T ex . 38 7, 38 9-9 0 (18 57 ) ( “B efo re 18 conf essi ons ca n be r ecei v ed i n ev i dence i n a cr i m i nal case, i t m ust be shown t hat t heyw er e vol unt ar y . T hey m u s t n o t h a v e b e e n o b ta in e d b y th e i n f lu e n c e o fh o p e o rfe a r , a p p li e d b y a th ird p e r s o n to th e p r is o n e r 's m i nd

. ”)

. R o c h a v . S ta te , 16 S

. W

. 3d 1, 20 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 00 ).

19 21 Oursbo urn , 259 S.W .3d at 172 . Th e be havior of the po lice may or may n o tb e a facto r. Id

. A confess ion g iv en under the duress of ha ll uci nati ons, il lne ss , medic ati ons, or ev en 17
a p riva te t hreat, for example, co uld be i nv olu ntar y under ar ti cl es 38.21 and 38. 22. Id

. 18 Unde r articles 38.21 and 38.2 2 an d the ir predece ssors, fact scena rios that ca n raise
a s tate-l aw

cl aim of inv olu ntar ine ss i ncl ude t he foll ow ing : (1 ) the s uspect was il l and on
me dicatio n and thatfact m ay have rende red his con fession inv olun tary; (2) the suspe ct 19
w as mental ly

retarded and may

not hav e “ know ing ly , intel li g entl y and v olu ntar il y ” w aiv edB e ll v . S ta te , 5 8 2 S .W .2 d 8 0 0 , 8 1 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 9 ); C a s ia s v . S ta te , 452 S. W

. 2d 483, 488 20 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 70 ).

R o g e rs v . S ta te , 549 S. W

. 2d 7 26, 729
- 30 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 1 97 7) ( f i ndi ng r ev er si bl e er r ori n t r i al 21 cour t ' s r ef usal t o gi v e j ur ygen er al i nst r uct i on o n v ol unt ar i ness o fst at em entwhen ev i dence r ai sed a n i ssue t ha t de fen da nt l ac k ed t he m en t al ca pa c i t yt o u nd ers t an d a nd w ai ve h i s ri gh t s be fore g i vi ng hi s stat em en t ).

I n R itc h ie v . S ta te , 164 T ex. C r i m . 38, 296 S. W

. 2d 551, 554 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 195 6) , t he e v i dence 22 was undi sput ed t hat t he d efendantwas i nt oxi cat ed, butt he t r i al j udge f ound t hat he was notso i nt oxi cat ed th a t h e c o u l d n o t u n d e rs ta n d w h a t h e w a s d o i n g . Id

. T h e re fo re , t h e t r ia l j u d g e “ in s tru c te d th e ju ry n o t t o c o n s i d e r th e [s ta te m e n t] u n l e s s th e yb e l i e v e d b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t, p rio r to m a k i n g th e s ta te m e n t, t he a ppel l ant was du l y war ned, and t hat t her eaft er he v ol unt ar i l yand f r eel ym ade t he sa m e an d un der st ood and si gned i t

. ” T he co ur t of cr i m i nal appea l s hel d t hat t he t r i al cour t di d not er ri n ad m i t t i ng t he e v i dence and i n s tru c ti n g th e ju ry a s h e d i d

. Id .; s e e a ls o F o s te r v . S ta te , 101 S. W

. 3d 49 0, 497 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 1st D i s t.] 2 0 0 2 , n o pe t

. ) ( no t i ng t ha t “[ l ] ac k of sl ee p fo r as l on g a s 16 ho urs do es no t , i n a nd of i t s el f, rend er a conf essi on i nv ol un t ary , ” a nd t hat “ a pe r son' s i l l i t er acyal one wi l l notnece ssar i l yr enderhi s st at em ent i na dm i s s i bl e”).

H a m in v . S ta te , 47 S

. W

. 65 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 18 98 ). 23 22 his r ig hts ; ( 3) the sus pect“ lac ked the ment al capac ity to understa nd his r ig hts ;” ( 4) the

20 21 suspe ct w as into x icated , and he “did no t know w hathe w as signing;” and (5) the suspe ct 22
w as confro nted by

the brother-i n- law

of his murder

v icti m and be aten. 23 As the s ole j udg e of t he credi bil ity of t he ev ide nce and w it ness es, the tr ial co urt had the discretion to believe A guilar’s testim ony that he did notund erstan d his Mi ra nda r ig hts b e c a u s e h e wa s n o tt h in k in g c le a rl y a tt h e t im e h e re a d t h e m a n d in d ic a t e d t o De t e ct ive G a rc ia t h a th e u n d e rs t o o d t h e m . T h e co u rta ls o h a d t h e d is c re t io n t o d is b e li e ve De t e ct ive Garci a’s tes ti mony

thatAg uil ar

understo od hi s r ig hts

. Howev er , the v ide otape est abl is hed that before Ag uila r made hi s i ncr imi nati ng st atements , D etecti v e Garci a g av e hi m the Mi ra nda ri g hts in Spani sh on a pre- pr int ed form, that Ag uil ar read t he r ig hts , and thathe ind ic ated he unde rs tood his r ig hts

. Ag uil ar then proceed ed w it hout hesi tati on to ans w er Detect iv e Garcia’s question s. The v ide o ta p e a lso s how ed Ag uil ar : (1 ) w as coherent; (2 ) understo od w hat De t e ct ive G a rc ia wa s sa yin g t o h im ; (3 ) wa s t h in k in g c le a rl y; ( 4 ) wa n t e d t o t a lkt o De t e ct ive G a rc ia a b o u th o w h e h a d st a b b e d M o s qu e d a ; ( 5 ) wa s ca lm a n d co o p e ra t ive , n o tsl e e p y,23

or conf used ; and (6) nev er asked to spea k w ith an atto rney or to te rmina te th e inte rv iew s. Mo re ov er , t he ev ide nce does not s how thatAg uil a r co u ld not understa nd hi s r ig hts becau se he was il l or

on me d icati on, ment all y di sabl ed, “ lac ked the ment al capac ity to understa nd hi s r ig hts ,” i ntox ic ated, or under the influ ence of drug s. Thus, noth ing i n the
v ideo tap e sho w ed th at at the time Detect iv e Garcia gav e Aguilar his Mi ra nda rig hts, h e did
no t k no w i ng l y , i nt el l i g en tl y , an d v ol un ta r i l y w ai v e th em . Furthe rmore , Aguilar te stif ied at the su ppre ssion hea ring tha t he w ant ed to confess to D etecti v e Garci a and that he v olu ntar il y co nfessed to h im

. Pursuant to arti cl e 38. 22,
secti on 5, noth ing prev ents admi ss ion of a s tatementthati s e it her : (1 ) re s g est ae of the arrest or o f

fense ; (2) a st ate me nt th at do es no t stem f rom cu stod ial interrogation ; or (3) a voluntar y s tatem ent, whether

or not the r esult of cu sto dia l inter

ro gati on . T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar

t. 38.22, § 5 (V er non 200 5) ( emphasi s a dded) ; see Tur ner , 252 S.W .3d a t 583. It is und ispute d tha t Aguilar failed to expressly w aive his rig hts; how ever, w e h old Ag uil ar i mpli ci tl y

waiv ed hi s r ig hts

. In Bar field v. Sta te , the court of

criminal app eals he ld Tex as’ s o ra l- confess ion st atute does not re q uire an ex press v er bal st atement from the
acc used that he waiv ed hi s r ig hts pr ior to g iv ing the s ta tement. Bar field v. Sta te , 784 S.W .2d 3 8, 40 -4 1 ( T e x. Cr im. App. 1989) , over ruled on o ther

gr ounds , Zim m erm an v. State , 860 S.W .2d 8 9 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1993)

. The Barfield co u rtd e t e rm in ed “tha t in
re achi ng the v olu ntar in e ss o f a confess ion , [w e s houl d l ook] at the t otal ity of the circumsta nces. ” Id . at41. Thus, based on t he to tal ity of the circums tanc es, w e c oncl ude t hat Ag uil ar know ing ly , i ntel li g entl y , and v olu ntar il y w aiv ed his r ig hts as req uired by ar ti cl e 38. 22. See Har gr ove v. State , 162 S.W .3d 313, 318- 19 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 05, p et. re f’d) ( findi ng24

acc used v ali dly

w aiv ed r ig hts des p it e lack of ex pli ci t waiv er ); State v . Oliver , 29 S.W .3d 190 , 193 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 200 0, pe t. ref ’d) (find ing, despite lack of ex plicit w aiver,
accuse d kno w ingly , intelligently, and v olun tarily ma de a state me nt af ter read ing his r ights, ind ic ati ng he u ndersto od t h e m, a n d p ro c e e d i n g w i thouthes it ati on to di sc uss ci rc umstan ces surroun ding the m urde r). Unde r a constitu tiona l challenge, th e an sw er is the sa m e . Al a c kof an express
w aiver by Aguilar o f

his Mi ra nda ri g hts does not, sta ndi ng al one, re nder the oral confess ion ina dmis si ble

. Tur

ner , 252 S.W .3d a t 584

. Rat her , w aiv er is to be jud g ed based upon t he total ity of the c ircums tanc es. Id

. A ga in , b a s e d u p o n t h e t o t a li ty o f t h e ci rc u m s t a n c e s , we hold Aguilar v alidly w aived his ri ghts und er the Unite d Sta tes an d T exas Constitut ions. Therefore, we hol d the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on i n granti ng the moti on to supp ress. V. C oncl usi on W e susta in the State ’s sole issue, reverse t h e orde r suppressin g Aguilar’s vi deotape d sta tements , and remand th e c ase to t he tr ial co urt for further pro ce e d in gs cons is tent w it h thi s o pin ion

.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 6 th da y

of Nov ember , 200 8.