Court Opinion

ID: 9776467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:36:33.851718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:39.017132
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
ONION, Judge.
I concur in the results reached by the majority, but I must take exception to that portion of the majority’s opinion which reads:
“If, as contended by appellant, Miranda v. State of Arizona were applicable, there was no injury to appellant, as his statement was purely exculpatory.”
Miranda teaches that “[t]he privilege against self-incrimination protects the individual from being compelled to incriminate himself in any manner; it does not distinguish degrees of incrimination. Similarly, for precisely the same reason, no distinction may be drawn between inculpatory statements and statements alleged to be merely ‘exculpatory.’ If a statement made were in fact truly exculpatory it would, of course, never be used by the prosecution. In fact, statements merely intended to be exculpatory by the defendant are often used to impeach his testimony at trial or to demonstrate untruths in the statement given under interrogation and thus to prove guilt by implication. These statements are incriminating in any meaningful sense of the word and may not be used without the full warnings and effective waiver required for any other statement.” See also Terry v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 420 S.W.2d 945.
MORRISON, J., joins in this concurrence.