Brooks, Adam Lamar
PD-1095-15
| Tex. App. | Oct 7, 2015Background
- Adam Lamar Brooks was convicted after giving a confession; he sought suppression arguing a fabricated police lineup caused his confession.
- Trial court found the fabricated lineup did not cause Brooks’s confession and denied suppression.
- The Tenth Court of Appeals (Waco) affirmed the trial court, holding the trial court’s factual finding was supported by the record.
- The State filed a reply to Brooks’s petition for discretionary review arguing Brooks failed to present a proper ground for review and that the appellate decision does not conflict with controlling precedent.
- Key evidentiary points: witness had identified Brooks (personalized plates); Brooks had been located later in same vehicle; a recorded call showed Brooks saying his confession was prompted by a spiritual motivation rather than Boyett’s lineup or interviewing techniques.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brooks presented a proper ground for discretionary review | Brooks argued the court of appeals erred in finding no causal connection between the fabricated lineup and his confession | State: Brooks’s petition attacks the trial court’s factual finding, not an appellate holding; petition fails to identify error in court of appeals’ decision | Denied: petition fails to present a proper ground for review of the court of appeals’ ruling |
| Whether the fabricated lineup causally produced the confession | Brooks argued some evidence of causal connection warranted suppression | State: although some evidence existed, the State produced contrary evidence (identity established earlier; recorded call indicating spiritual motivation) | Held: trial court’s finding that the lineup did not cause the confession is supported by the record |
| Burden on causation issue at suppression hearing | Brooks: any evidence of causal connection should shift outcome in his favor | State: producing evidence of causal connection triggers State’s opportunity to disprove it; burden of persuasion remains | Held: trial court resolves credibility; appellate court reviews for support in record; State rebutted causal link here |
| Whether the appellate decision conflicts with other Texas authority | Brooks asserted conflict with multiple cases regarding causal connection and exclusion | State: cases acknowledge causal-connection requirement and permit State rebuttal; no conflict exists | Held: no conflict with cited authorities; appellate decision consistent with precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregory v. State, 176 S.W.3d 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (petition for review must specifically address error in court of appeals)
- Pham v. State, 175 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (if defendant produces evidence of causal connection, State may attempt to disprove it)
- Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (evidence should be excluded once causal connection is established)
- State v. Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (discussion of inevitable discovery and causal connection)
- Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (noting State conceded lack of causal-connection argument in that appeal)
- Wehrenberg v. State, 416 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (independent source doctrine applies only where no causal connection exists)
- State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (appellate court reviews whether evidence supports trial court’s explicit fact findings)
- St. George v. State, 237 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial judge is sole trier of fact and judge of credibility)