Astin Chavers Clark v. State, 01-15-00324-CR

Appellant on deferred adjudication probation for burglary of a habitation in two cases.
State moved to adjudicate based on numerous probation violations admitted by Appellant.
Polygraph examination occurred; pre-polygraph interview and post-polygraph written statements were recorded.
Trial court admitted Appellant’s statements over Miranda and Fifth Amendment objections.
Appellant argued statements were compelled and violated self-incrimination protections.
Court held statements admissible; no custodial interrogation; waiver of Fifth Amendment rights due to failure to invoke.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of statements violated Miranda and the Fifth Amendment.	Clark's statements were coerced or involuntary.	State admits statements despite Miranda/Fifth rights.	Admissible; no Miranda infringement; Fifth Amendment not implicated.
Whether Appellant timely invoked the Fifth Amendment right.	Waiver occurred because Appellant did not invoke.	No invocation required due to non-custodial setting.	Not timely invoked; waives argument against admissibility.
Whether the lack of Miranda warnings to the polygraph examiner tainted the evidence.	Polygraph-related questioning needs warnings.	Not custodial; polygraph examiner not a peace officer.	No custodial interrogation; Miranda warnings not required.
Whether any error was harmless given multiple probation violations.	Admission tainted the revocation.	Probation violations independent of tainted evidence; harmless.	Harmless error; revocation supported by true pleas.

Canseco v. State, 199 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (abuse of discretion standard in evidentiary decisions; no Miranda issue)
Chapman v. State, 115 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ( Fifth Amendment not self-executing; probation questions generally not implicating privilege)
Dansby v. State, 398 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (probation-related questions do not implicate Fifth Amendment if not coercive)
Murphy v. United States, 465 U.S. 420 (Supreme Court 1984) (classic penalty exception to self-incrimination; custodial interrogation protections)
Marcum v. State, 983 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998) (polygraph requirement during probation not custodial interrogation)
Ex parte Renfro, 999 S.W.2d 557 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (polygraph as probation condition did not infringe self-incrimination)
Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (Supreme Court 1984) ( Fifth Amendment protections regarding probation and self-incrimination)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court 1966) (establishes requirement of warnings in custodial interrogation)