Court Opinion

ID: 9667126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:36:13.597076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:35.152568
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Justice,
concurring.
Although I agree with the result, I cannot agree with the majority’s reliance on the “inevitable discovery” exception to the exclusionary rule in the harmless-error analysis. The rule was adopted in Nix v. Williams, where on retrial the state was faced with the inability to introduce evidence of the body of the young victim, its condition, the autopsy report, and all related evidence because of an interrogation error which led to the body’s discovery. To avoid the exclusion of that vital evidence, the state proved that a search team of 200 volunteers had been systematically searching an area covering two counties in Iowa and were only two and one-half miles from the county in which the body was found when the search was called off due to William’s disclosure of its location. Nix v. *106Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). Each of the searchers was instructed to check all roads, abandoned farm buildings, ditches, culverts, and any other place in which the body of a small child could be hidden. The trial court found that the state had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that “if the search had not been suspended and Williams had not led the police to the victim, her body would have been discovered within a short time, in essentially the same condition as it was actually found.” Thus, the Supreme Court held that the state had gained no advantage at trial and the defendant had suffered no prejudice. Id. at 447, 104 S.Ct. at 2511.
The "inevitable discovery” rule is not a harmless-error rule. It is a rule of admissibility which, in my view, has limited application in Texas in light of the express provisions of article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended in 1987. See Oliver v. State, 711 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex.App.—Port Worth 1986, no pet.); Tex. Code CRIM.PROC.Ann. art 38.23 (Vernon Supp.1991).
Here, the Court found that the evidence was admissible, and we affirm that ruling. The majority, however, applies the inevitable discovery rule in its harmless-error analysis, and I cannot agree with that application.