Court Opinion

ID: 9763317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:41:02.560503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:41.049831
License: Public Domain

TIJERINA, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent on the question of the voluntariness of the confession and find unassigned error in the charge.
Appellant and co-defendant Tate went to the Sheriffs Office voluntarily and were interrogated in separate rooms. Appellant admitted that his first oral statement denying knowledge of the killing was false, and when he was told by the officers that Tate had made a statement implicating him with the killing, he agreed to make a written statement. Appellant first signed a waiver of rights form; however, prior to the taking of the written statement the following relevant and undisputed matters occurred:
(1) The officers told appellant that Tate had implicated him with the killing.
(2) Appellant was told that he could be charged with capital punishment which involved the death penalty.
(3) Appellant was shown photographs of the dead body with an L-shaped laceration to the mouth.
Officer Jackson testified as follows:
I went back in the sheriff’s office, and at that time he had already signed this waiver and he was warned of his rights. At that time I told him that he was going to probably be charged with capital murder and that I wanted the truth about the killing. At that time he broke down and started crying. It took him some five, ten or fifteen minutes before he gained his composure.
While he was crying he was babbling out about how he went down. This was during the five, ten or fifteen minutes and before he regained his composure enough to relate to us what his story was of what happened. But then he would break down, while he was repeating the story, he would break down and cry some more, off and on, and we would have to wait. Then he would tell us some more.
Q: Did he sign that waiver in front of you?
A: Yes, he did. (Emphasis added.)
The conflict in Officer Jackson’s testimony is found in his statement that when he returned to the Sheriff’s Office, appellant had already signed the waiver, and his later statement that the waiver was signed in his presence. There is additional undisputed evidence that appellant had not eaten, slept, bathed or changed clothes for two and a half days.
Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 38.21 (Vernon 1979) provides as follows:
A statement of an accused may be used in evidence against him if it appears that the same was freely and voluntarily made without compulsion or persuasion, under the rules hereafter prescribed.
Generally, before a confession can be admitted into evidence it must be shown to have been freely and voluntarily given. Taylor v. State, 630 S.W.2d 824, 825 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no pet.). The totality of the circumstances must be examined to determine whether a confession is voluntary. Berry v. State, 582 S.W.2d 463, 465 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). A confession, in order to meet constitutional standards, must be both voluntary and taken in compliance with the Miranda rule; if it meets one requirement and not the other, it is inadmissible. See Ochoa v. State, 573 S.W.2d 796, 801 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). It is reversible error for a court or jury to consider truth or falsity, in determining voluntariness of a *166confession. Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 543-44, 81 S.Ct. 735, 740-41, 5 L.Ed.2d 760 (1961). The jury finding that appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional and statutory rights is totally contrary to the undisputed evidence that appellant was physically and emotionally distraught and depressed. When a person taken into custody is too upset to assert or waive his rights knowingly and intelligently, under Miranda all questioning should cease until such time as that person is clearly capable of so responding. See Sample v. Eyman, 469 F.2d 819, 821 (9th Cir.1972). See also Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560, 78 S.Ct. 844, 2 L.Ed.2d 975 (1958); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019,82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); Morales v. State, 427 S.W.2d 51, 55 (Tex.Cr.App.1968).
Officer Martinez testified that he started taking appellant’s statement within ten to fifteen minutes after appellant’s arrival at the Sheriff’s Office, but left on a call, and that he returned later and witnessed the signing of the statement. The testimony of Martinez pertinent to the waiver of rights issue is as follows:
Q: [Y]ou felt that he truly understood what you were explaining to him?
A: Yes, sir, I believe he did, because I read them carefully one by one to him. I read him everything that was on the form.
Q: Did you ask him specifically each time, ‘Do you understand this right?’
A: I asked him at the end if he understood all of the rights on the form.
A failure by the defendant to affirmatively request counsel does not of itself constitute sufficient evidence of a waiver of that right. Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 513, 82 S.Ct. 884, 888, 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962). With respect to an affirmative waiver of Miranda rights, such as the right to counsel, the fact that a statement appears at the top of a written confession waiving counsel is, while a factor, not determinative. All the facts and circumstances must be examined. Knoppa v. State, 505 S.W.2d 802, 805 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Encina v. State, 471 S.W.2d 384, 389 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); McCandless v. State, 425 S.W.2d 636, 640 (Tex.Cr.App.1968).
The question as to the voluntariness of the confession was established by legal and competent evidence, i.e., (1) the physical and emotional state of appellant, (2) the threat of being charged with capital murder, involving the death penalty, (3) the compelled viewing of the photograph of the dead body, and (4) the information that his friend Tate had implicated him with the murder. Appellant testified as to the involuntary aspects of the confession and additionally testified as to exculpatory matters raising the issues of accident and self-defense. The State failed to discharge its burden and present evidence on the issue of voluntariness or disprove the exculpatory statement on the case in chief and after appellant testified.
The warnings and waivers required by Miranda must be demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial, or evidence obtained as a result of interrogation cannot be used against the appellant.
Another factor to be considered is that the confession was not obtained in compliance with the strict requirements of Tex. Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 38.22, § (2)(a) (Vernon 1979), which in pertinent part provides as follows:
(2) No written statement made by an accused as a result of custodial interrogation is admissible as evidence against him in any criminal proceeding unless it is shown on the face of the statement that:
(a) the accused, prior to making the statement, either received from a magistrate the warning provided in Article 15.17 of this code or received from the person to whom the statement is made a warning.... [Emphasis added.]
The confession herein recites on its face that appellant before making this statement was warned by H. Joaquin Jackson the person to whom this statement is given. (Emphasis ours.) The records reflect that it was Officer Martinez who gave appellant the warning and he did not take the state-*167meat. The redirect examination of Officer Jackson reveals the following:
Q: Correct me if I’m wrong, but were you present throughout the time that he was giving the statement?
A: Not the whole time. When he began giving the statement to Officer Martinez I left out, and I would have come back in ... I believe Michael Tate and Sheriff Kelley had come back with the murder weapon and I went back in and talked with Tate and Sheriff Kelley. Then I went back into the sheriff’s office. But I was in and out. (Emphasis ours.)
This question is unlike King v. State, 585 S.W.2d 720 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), where the court approved the warning in a written statement because the defendant confessed to the officer who gave him the warning and the same officer was present when defendant dictated his confession to the clerk, notwithstanding that the officer was not present when the confession was signed. Here, it appears that appellant stayed with the clerk typists and both Officers Jackson and Martinez returned when the statement was completed. At the very least, the record was not fully developed in this regard.
The unassigned error issue concerns a fundamentally defective charge which requires reversal. The admissibility of the confession was submitted by the trial court to the jury under instructions to disregard the confession in the event they found reasonable doubt as to whether it was made by appellant voluntarily and without coercion or duress. This is the approved procedure where issues of fact arise as to the volun-tariness of the confession. Prince v. State, 155 Tex.Cr. 108, 231 S.W.2d 419, 420 (1950). In Law v. State, 165 Tex.Cr. 542, 309 S.W.2d 443, 444 (1958), the Court held that when the evidence is conflicting, the jury will determine whether the confession was freely and voluntarily made and also determine the weight to be given the confession. This standard is crucial in this case because the confession includes an exculpatory statement.
In the case at bar, appellant gave notice of appeal on June 27,1979. Tex.Code Crim. Proc.Ann. art. 40.09(13), was in effect at the time notice of appeal was given in this case. The amendment to Article 40.09 which deleted subdivision 13 became effective September 1, 1981. Article 40.09(13), supra, mandated that fundamental error of omission or commission in the trial court’s charge must be reviewed in the interest of justice. See Barnes v. State, 644 S.W.2d 1, 1-2 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). Just as it is the sole responsibility of a trial judge, and no other, to prepare a proper and correct charge for a jury, it is this court’s legal duty not to let fundamental error in a charge go unnoticed. Doyle v. State, 631 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).
The fundamentally defective portion of the charge concerns the instructions to the jury for their determination of the volun-tariness of the confession, and in pertinent part reads as follows:
You are instructed that you cannot consider such statement or confession as evidence against the defendant unless you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that such statement was made by the defendant after he was taken before a magistrate and warned by the said magistrate. ... (Emphasis ours.)
There is absolutely no evidence that appellant was ever taken before a magistrate or received a warning from a magistrate, before or after the officers obtained the waiver of rights or the confession. The court clearly misdirected the jury on this particular portion of the charge, essential to the defensive issues. The error in the charge goes to the very basis of the case because the charge fails to state and apply the correct law to the fact issue to be addressed by the jury in its deliberation and determination regarding the voluntariness of the confession. See Williams v. State, 622 S.W.2d 578 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). The applicable statute considered in the review of this question is Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 38.22 § 7 (Vernon 1979), providing as follows:
*168When the issue [of the voluntariness of the defendant’s statement] is raised by the evidence, the trial judge shall appropriately instruct the jury, generally, on the law pertaining to such statement. (Emphasis ours.)
Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 40.03 (Vernon 1979), “Grounds for a New Trial,” provides in pertinent part as follows:
New trials, in cases of felony, shall be granted the defendant for the following causes
[[Image here]]
(2) Where the court has misdirected the jury as to the law, or has committed any other material error calculated to injure the rights of the defendant.
From these statutory provisions it appears that the judge must appropriately instruct the jury and the defendant is entitled to a new trial when the court has misdirected the jury.
Appellant herein has a basic constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial, as well as a right to have the jury make an unbiased and fair determination of the fact issues involving the voluntariness of the confession and the defensive issues contained therein. These rights are mandated by the due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 19, of the Texas Constitution. See Doyle v. State, supra at 738. The trial court’s mistake in misdirecting and erroneously charging the jury to consider the warning given by the magistrate, if they believed that appellant was taken before a magistrate, is unduly suggestive, and interferes and impairs with appellant’s right to trial by jury. See U.S. Const, amend. VI, XIV; Tex.Const. art. I, § 10; Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 36.19 (Vernon 1981). See also Williams v. State, 547 S.W.2d 18 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).
The trial court’s charge on the voluntariness issue requiring a jury finding as to the magistrate’s warning tilted the scales. The jury could have reasonably inferred that a neutral, impartial and detached magistrate participated in the process prior to the taking of the statement and that the participation of the magistrate manifested an import of validity. If a trial court fails to properly instruct a jury on the law, and on the law as applied to the facts, a jury cannot perform its function of being the exclusive judge of the facts. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc.Ann. art. 36.13 (Vernon 1981). The charge on the magistrate, deprived appellant of the benefit of whatever credit his testimony might have been given by the jury. “A defendant has the right to be tried according to the substantive and procedural due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Rogers v. Richmond, supra, 365 U.S. at 544-45, 81 S.Ct. at 741-42.
Thus, concerning appellant’s first ground of error, I have considered the totality of the circumstances and conclude that the confession was not freely and voluntarily obtained and that appellant did not knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional and statutory rights. In considering the unassigned error, the entire record and the charge have been reviewed and it is further concluded that the trial court, on the fact issue involving the voluntariness of the confession, committed fundamental error which injured the rights of appellant and denied him a fair and impartial trial.
The judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded.