Armendariz, Emmanuel, PD-0646-15

Background

On Aug. 27, 2010 Emmanuel Armendariz discovered his 2‑year‑old son had been left in a truck and later died; that evening (≈9:10 p.m.) Armendariz gave a recorded statement at the Socorro police substation.
Socorro Detective Javier Varela conducted and videotaped the interview, read Miranda warnings, and asked if Armendariz would waive rights; Armendariz nodded and then gave an extended narrative lasting under 15 minutes.
At a suppression hearing detectives Varela, Chavez, and Santibanez testified that Armendariz was under arrest/detained when interviewed; the trial court nonetheless found he was not under arrest and that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights and that the statement complied with Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22.
The State conceded the trial court’s “not under arrest” finding lacked record support, but argued that whether custodial or not, the admissibility question turns on voluntariness and waiver under the totality of circumstances.
The Eighth Court of Appeals reviewed the recording (with deference to the trial court’s assessment of demeanor) and affirmed: it concluded the warnings were given, Armendariz indicated understanding, and the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Armendariz)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the appellate court applied the correct standard of review for suppression (deference to trial court on historical facts and demeanor)	Appellant: court of appeals failed to give “almost total deference” to trial‑court findings and improperly conducted its own totality review of waiver; appellate assumptions lack factual basis	State: trial court reviewed testimony and video; even if a trial finding that he was not under arrest lacked support, the dispositive question is voluntariness/waiver which the record supports	Court of Appeals affirmed; applied deferential review to trial court’s demeanor findings based on the video and held waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
Whether Armendariz knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived Miranda/Art. 38.22 rights (totality of circumstances)	Appellant: waiver was not proven — he was grieving, inexperienced, questioned hours after learning of his child’s death, not asked verbally to acknowledge understanding, no written waiver; State failed to meet heavy burden to show comprehension and voluntariness	State: videotape shows warnings, nods and verbal acknowledgments, no coercion/threats/promises, no intoxication, no request for counsel or to stop; totality supports waiver	Held: totality showed an uncoerced choice and awareness of rights; trial court could infer waiver from words/actions; statement admissible
Effect of trial court’s erroneous finding that appellant was not under arrest	Appellant: error undermines Article 38.22 analysis because that article governs custodial interrogations	State: even if custodial, Article 38.22 protections apply and the record establishes admissibility; the erroneous finding is non‑dispositive	Held: lack of support for the ‘‘not under arrest’’ finding did not require reversal; because evidence shows custody, Article 38.22 applied and the statement nonetheless met its requirements
Proper scope of appellate review when trial resolution rests on video evidence of demeanor	Appellant: appellate court wrongly relied on its own limited review instead of deferring to trial findings	State: appellate court may give almost total deference to trial court’s video‑based demeanor findings; it did so	Held: appellate court properly afforded deference to the trial court’s assessment of demeanor from the video and did not abuse discretion

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishes warnings and requires waiver to be voluntary, knowing, intelligent)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986) (waiver requires both uncoerced choice and awareness of rights and consequences)
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for waiver considers background, experience, conduct)
North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979) (waiver can be inferred from words and actions, express waiver not always required)
Joseph v. State, 309 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Texas articulation of two‑part waiver test and inference of waiver from conduct)
State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate deference rules for suppression findings; review must be grounded in trial‑court reality)
State v. Duran, 396 S.W.3d 563 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial‑court determinations of demeanor from video receive almost total deference)