Court Opinion

ID: 9645733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:33:54.374024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:30.930749
License: Public Domain

MANSFIELD, Justice,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court. I write separately, however, to discuss point of error number seven as it relates to Tigner v. State, 928 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.Crim.App.1996).
In Tigner, we examined Article 38.22, § 3(a)(5) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure as it pertained to an electronically-recorded custodial statement of an accused. We specifically probed the meaning of two terms, “copy” and “proceeding,” as those terms were used in Article 38.22, § 3(a)(5). Today, in analyzing point of error number seven, we probe the meaning of the word “provide” as used in that statute. Our opinion today is consistent with the holding in Tigner because the inquiries in each case were different. In Tigner, it was clear that the State did “provide” something to the defendant. The issue there was simply whether that “something” constituted a “copy” for the purpose of Article 38.22, § 3(a)(5).
I join the opinion of the Court today both because I agree with the majority’s interpretation of the term “provide,” and because that interpretation is consistent with Tigner v. State.