Andre Jamal Sloan v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 15276
Tex. App.2013Background
- In 1990 Wistong Potes was killed and his wife Tamara was raped and wounded; physical evidence (rape kit, nightgown) was preserved.
- In 2010 Cold Case detectives submitted that evidence for DNA testing and obtained a CODIS match to Andre Jamal Sloan, then serving a prior life sentence.
- Sloan was brought from prison for a first recorded interrogation (Miranda warnings given and waived). Five days later Sloan called detectives, was escorted to a jail office (handcuffs removed, officers unarmed) and gave a second ~20-minute recorded statement without a fresh Miranda warning; the second interview was covertly audio recorded.
- Sloan moved to suppress both recordings; the trial court denied suppression after a hearing where officers testified and recordings were played. Redacted versions were admitted at trial; a jury convicted Sloan of capital murder and the court imposed mandatory life imprisonment (State did not seek death).
- On appeal the court abated for findings; the trial court found the second statement voluntary and noncustodial. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Sloan’s Miranda/custody, involuntariness, and Eighth Amendment challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sloan) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether second recorded statement was product of custodial interrogation requiring fresh Miranda warnings | Sloan: He was effectively in custody and interrogated without a new Miranda waiver; custodial context rendered statement inadmissible | State: Sloan initiated the second interview, was unrestrained (handcuffs removed), officers unarmed, short interview—not custodial | Court: Not custodial; viewing totality and Howe v. Fields, a reasonable person could have ended interview; no fresh Miranda required |
| Whether second statement was involuntary due to police overreaching (including secret recording) | Sloan: Coercive circumstances and surreptitious recording rendered confession involuntary | State: No overreaching shown at suppression hearing; issue not preserved because Sloan did not raise it below | Court: Not preserved for review; alternative merits analysis not reached |
| Whether mandatory life sentence violated Eighth Amendment by precluding mitigation (life without parole) | Sloan: Mandatory life prevented presentation of mitigation and is cruel and unusual post-Miller reasoning | State: Sloan failed to preserve constitutional challenge by not objecting at sentencing; Miller concerns apply to juveniles only | Court: Error not preserved; Miller limited to juveniles and does not alter preservation requirement; challenge overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
- Howe v. Fields, 132 S. Ct. 1181 (U.S. 2012) (totality test for inmate custodial status; inmate-initiated interviews may be noncustodial)
- Herrera v. State, 241 S.W.3d 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (custody standard same for Miranda and Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22)
- Alford v. State, 358 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)
- Kelly v. State, 204 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (view evidence in light most favorable to trial court on suppression)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole unconstitutional for juvenile offenders)