Court Opinion

ID: 9662460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:09:37.993925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:39.668972
License: Public Domain

BRIAN QUINN,
Justice, concurring.
To the extent the majority concludes that the judgment should be affirmed, I concur. I respectfully disagree, however, with the proposition that appellant did not waive his right against self-incrimination *818when he took the witness stand and testified on his own behalf.

Applicable Law

That the State may not compel one to incriminate himself during a criminal proceeding is beyond dispute. Similarly indisputable is the rule that this right exists during both phases of a criminal trial, ie. the guilt/innocence and punishment phases. See Carroll v. State, 42 S.W.3d 129, 131-33 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (so holding). Yet, equally clear is the rule “that when an accused voluntarily takes the stand he waives his privilege against self-incrimination at the hearing at which he takes the stand.” Hernandez v. State, 506 S.W.2d 884, 886 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); accord Bryan v. State, 837 S.W.2d 637, 643 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (so holding); Brumfield v. State, 445 S.W.2d 732, 735 (Tex.Crim.App.1969) (so holding). This is so because by voluntarily testifying on his own behalf, the accused is not being compelled to incriminate himself.
Indeed, the proscription against self-incrimination reads: “[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself....” U.S. Const. Amend. V. As can be readily seen, the operative term in the provision is “compelled.” Simply put, the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit every instance of self-incrimination but those where the incrimination is “obtained by a ‘genuine compulsion of testimony.’ ” United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 187, 97 S.Ct. 1814, 1818-19, 52 L.Ed.2d 238 (1977) (quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974)). “Absent some officially coerced self-accusation,” the amendment “is not violated by even the most damning admissions.” Id. For instance, a police officer need not stop one who walks into a precinct house and attempts to confess to a crime. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Nor must the officer first inform the individual of his right to remain silent before the confession can be used against him. This is so because “[vjolunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by” the need to admonish prior to custodial interrogation. Id. The same is no less true when a defendant opts to voluntarily speak on his own behalf. While the better practice may be to tell the individual about his right to remain silent and the implications arising from the decision to speak, the failure to do’so does not render the ensuing testimony inadmissible as a violation of the Fifth Amendment if the testimony was nonetheless voluntarily given. Powers v. United States, 223 U.S. 303, 313-14, 32 S.Ct. 281, 283-84, 56 L.Ed. 448 (1912) (concluding that the Fifth Amendment was not violated when Powers voluntarily opted to testify at a preliminary hearing even though he was not admonished about his right against self-incrimination).
In sum, whether the Fifth Amendment is implicated when an individual decides to testify depends not upon whether the witness “made a knowing decision to testify, but why ” he chose to testify. Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219, 223, 88 S.Ct. 2008, 2010, 20 L.Ed.2d 1047 (1968) (emphasis in original). The court must assess whether the decision constituted an exercise in free will or an act arising from coercion. If it is the former, then the individual has not been denied his right to avoid self-incrimination. If it is the latter, then the same may not be true. And, to determine which it was, the totality of the circumstances must be perused. Wash*819ington, 431 U.S. at 188, 97 S.Ct. at 1819.2

Application of the Law

Here, appellant initially pled guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The trial court found that the plea was knowing and voluntary, deferred his adjudication of guilt, and placed him on community supervision. Thereafter, the State moved to adjudicate appellant’s guilt, and appellant subsequently pled true to various of the grounds asserted in the motion. This led the trial court to conclude that appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision. Next, when asked if she had “any witnesses on punishment,” counsel for appellant stated that her client “would like to testify.” At that point the trial court said, “[c]ome right up and take a seat on the witness stand.” Appellant did and testified on his own behalf.
It is obvious from the foregoing recitation of the evidence before us that appellant had legal counsel before appearing as a witness in his own defense. Whether that counsel informed his client of the Fifth Amendment and his rights thereunder cannot be discerned, however. Nevertheless, the record does illustrate that appellant 1) uttered no objection to testifying before appearing on the witness stand, 2) failed to invoke any privilege against self-incrimination, 3) failed to indicate in any way that he was ignorant of his Fifth Amendment right prohibiting self-incrimination, and 4) failed to indicate in any way that he would not have testified had the court admonished him about that amendment. It also depicts that the trial court merely invited him to the stand at the behest of his attorney. Neither the trial court nor the prosecution said or did anything suggesting that either urged him in any way to testify. Nor does the record contain any evidence from which one could reasonably infer that 1) either the trial court or the prosecution wanted him to testify or intended to hold his silence against him in any way or 2) appellant hesitated, in any way, in testifying on his own behalf.
Simply put, the totality of the circumstances at bar evince no coercion on the part of the court or anyone else. Appellant voluntarily took the stand, and in doing so, waived any complaint about self-incrimination. Hernandez, 506 S.W.2d at 886; Brumfield, 445 S.W.2d at 735. That he was not admonished by the trial court about his right to remain silent does not change that result. Powers, 223 U.S. at 313-14, 32 S.Ct. at 283-84.
Finally, the cases of Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 143 *820L.Ed.2d 424 (1999) and Carroll, 42 S.W.3d at 131-33, on which appellant relies, are inapposite. Neither involved a defendant who volunteered to testify on his own behalf during the punishment phase of the trial. Rather, in each, the trial court concluded that the respective defendant had no right to remain silent. Mitchell, 526 U.S. at 319, 119 S.Ct. at 1310; Carroll, 42 S.W.3d at 133. And, because he or she allegedly had no such right, the defendants’ silence was a factor considered in setting punishment. Mitchell, 526 U.S. at 319, 119 S.Ct. at 1310-11; Carroll, 42 S.W.3d at 130-31. None of that occurred here. More importantly, Mitchell said nothing about the trial court having to admonish a defendant about the Fifth Amendment before that individual could voluntarily testify on his own behalf. Nor did Carroll so hold. Instead, it merely noted that the trial court failed to admonish her about the Fifth Amendment as it attempted to coerce her into testifying. Carroll, 42 S.W.3d at 133. That is a far cry from holding that admonishments must be afforded a defendant who voluntarily chooses to appear in his defense.3
Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment not because the purported error was harmless but because there was no error.

. If the test is not whether the witness "made a knowing decision to testify, but why," as the Supreme Court stated in Harrison, 392 U.S. at 223, 88 S.Ct. at 2010, then, logically, whether or not anyone informed the accused of his Fifth Amendment right is not controlling. Indeed, this observation finds support in Powers. Again, there it was held that the witness's testimony was not obtained in derogation of the Fifth Amendment even though he was not informed by the court of his right to remain silent. Powers, 223 U.S. at 313-14, 32 S.Ct. at 283-84. Yet, one must nonetheless proceed with caution for there is seldom a bright line when it comes to rules of law, constitutional or otherwise. Given that the totality of the circumstances control, Washington, 431 U.S. at 188, 97 S.Ct. at 1819, the totality of the circumstances must be perused. Even the court in Powers did that. See Powers, 223 U.S. at 313-14, 32 S.Ct. at 283-84 (finding no violation of the Fifth Amendment because Powers 1) did not invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, 2) did not indicate that he was ignorant of the privilege, and 3) did not claim he would have remained silent had he been admonished of the privilege). Simply put, that a complainant is not admonished about the Fifth Amendment before testifying alone does not render his testimony inadmissible via that amendment.

. Indeed, if the court were to read Carroll as appellant suggests (i.e. holding that one must be admonished about his right to remain silent before he can voluntarily testify) then, implicitly, it would be rejecting the totality test set forth in Washington. No longer would all the circumstances be of import. Rather, the mere circumstance of whether or not admonishments were administered would become dispositive. To reject the teachings of the United States Supreme Court in Washington surely is not what the Court of Criminal Appeals intended in Carroll.