Court Opinion

ID: 9676201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:17:29.689904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:45.494415
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, J.,
concurring.
I concur with the affirmance. I write only to take issue with the majority’s holding concerning Sander’s oral confession. When those statements were made, the authorities were aware of Sander’s sexual assault on the child and confronted him with those facts. While some of the “restraint” factors of Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), are different here, the probable cause and “focus of the investigation” factors were even more prevalent. See also Ruth v. State, 645 S.W.2d 432, 436 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). Sander’s oral and written confessions were, in my view, custodial. Therefore, *918the admission of the oral statement was error, albeit, harmless error in view of the written statement and Sander’s admission to the adoption case worker.1

. One wonders why the State would urge the admissibility of a legally questionable oral confession when they have an absolutely le-gaily admissible written statement, plus a legally admissible oral admission to the case worker.