Court Opinion

ID: 9654399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:19:12.159794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:08.983804
License: Public Domain

OPINION
ONION, Presiding Judge.
This appeal is taken from a robbery by assault conviction where the punishment was assessed at fifty years.
The victim of the alleged robbery was unable to make a positive identification of the appellant as one of his two assailants, and the conviction rests largely upon appellant’s extrajudicial confession which he contends was not taken in accordance with Article 38.22, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.
Before reaching appellant’s contention, we observe that we are unable to find that the trial judge determined the voluntariness of the alleged confession prior to its admission into evidence before the jury which is both constitutionally and statutorily required. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964); Lopez v. State, 384 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); Article 38.22, supra.
Prior to trial the trial judge did conduct a hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress his confession. After the State’s evidence as to the confession was offered, the appellant took the stand and contended he was not properly warned and that he gave the statement because one officer had told him shortly after his arrest in Cameron that he (the officer) knew some cornfields and wouldn’t hesitate to stop if the appellant didn’t cooperate; that he was later told by the officers that if he didn’t get his business straight he would be a good farmer before he got out of the penitentiary, etc.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge stated: “Motion will be overruled. That is all.”
At the trial, over objection, the written confession was introduced before the jury. The issue of voluntariness was submitted to the jury.
There are no findings of the trial judge in the record. It is not clear if the trial judge decided voluntariness one way or the other, or, if he did, what standard was relied upon. Cf. Boles v. Stevenson, 379 U.S. 43, 85 S.Ct. 174, 13 L.Ed.2d 109 (1964). There does not appear to be any clear-cut and reliable determination in the first instance of the voluntariness of the written statement.
In Jackson v. Denno, supra, the United States Supreme Court wrote:
“It is now axiomatic that a defendant in a criminal case is deprived of due process of law if his conviction is founded, in whole or in part, upon an involuntary confession, without regard for the truth or falsity of the confession, Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 81 S.Ct. 735, 5 L.Ed.2d 760, and even though there is ample evidence aside from the confession to support the conviction. Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401, 65 S.Ct. 781, 89 L.Ed. 1029; Stroble v. California, 343 U.S. 181, 72 S.Ct. 599, 96 L.Ed. 872; Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560, 78 S.Ct. 844, 2 L.Ed.2d 975. Equally clear is the defendant’s constitutional right at some stage in the proceedings to object to the use of the confession and to have a fair hearing and a reliable determina*305tion on the issue of voluntariness, a determination uninfluenced by the truth or falsity of the confession. Rogers v. Richmond, supra.”
As a constitutional matter, Jackson v. Denno, supra, requires that the trial judge’s conclusion as to voluntariness must, at least, appear from the record with unmistakable clarity. Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593 (1967).
In Sims v. Georgia, supra, the Court said:
“A constitutional rule was laid down in that case (Jackson v. Denno) that a jury is not to hear a confession unless and until the trial judge has determined that it was freely and voluntarily given. The rule allows the jury, if it so chooses, to give absolutely no weight to the confession in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant but it is not for the jury to make the primary determination of voluntariness. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.)
See also Treadway v. State, 437 S.W.2d 572 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Dixon v. State, 383 S.W.2d 928 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); Harris v. State, 384 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); McIlwain v. State, 402 S.W.2d 916 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Lopez v. State, supra.
Further, Article 38.22 § 2, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., provides as follows:
“2. In all cases where a question is raised as to the voluntariness of a confession or statement, the court must make an independent finding in the absence of the jury as to whether the confession or statement was made under voluntary conditions. If the confession or statement has been found to have been voluntarily made and held admissible as a matter of law and fact by the court in a hearing in the absence of the jury, the court must enter an order stating its findings, which order shall be filed among the papers of the cause. Such order shall not be exhibited to the jury nor the finding thereof made known to the jury in any manner. Upon the finding by the judge as a matter of law and fact that the confession or statement was voluntarily made, evidence pertaining to such matter may be submitted to the jury and it shall be instructed that unless the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession or statement was voluntarily made, the jury shall not consider such statement or confession for any purpose nor any evidence obtained as a result thereof. In any case where a motion to suppress the statement or confession has been filed and evidence has been submitted to the court on this issue, the court within its discretion may reconsider such evidence in his finding that the statement or confession was voluntarily made and the same evidence submitted to the court at the hearing on the motion to suppress shall be made a part of the record the same as if it were being presented at the time of trial. However, the state or the defendant shall be entitled to present any new evidence on the issue of the voluntariness of the statement or confession prior to the court’s final ruling and order stating its findings.”
It is clear from the statute that the trial court “must enter an order stating its findings, which order shall be filed among the papers of the cause.”
From all of the foregoing, this record reveals a failure to comply with both constitutional and statutory requirements. See Figueroa v. State, 473 S.W.2d 202 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).
The dissent in urging the appeal be abated relies in part upon Escalante v. State, 394 S.W.2d 518 (Tex.Cr.App.1965). Escalante was decided prior to the enactment of Article 38.22, supra, and did not involve an abatement of an appeal. There, the trial judge forwarded in a supplemental transcript his findings as to the voluntariness of the confession.
*306If we are to abate every appeal where the trial court does not comply either with federal constitutional requirements or the provisions of a state statute, then why should trial judges ever make findings of fact or conclusions of law with regard to voluntariness of a confession? They can ignore both sets of requirements and do it only when the appeal is abated.
For the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.