Cervantez, Alcadio, PD-1082-15

Cervantez was charged with aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child; after trial he was convicted of indecency and sentenced to 17 years.
He gave two non‑custodial written statements to a detective (Oct. 1 and Oct. 3, 2007); neither interview was electronically recorded.
The Oct. 1 statement was exculpatory; after a polygraph on Oct. 3 the detective prepared a second statement in which Cervantez admitted touching the child’s breast; Cervantez signed but later disputed reading or making parts of it.
At a pretrial suppression hearing Cervantez testified the detective promised to ‘‘talk to the D.A. and get [him] probation’’ and threatened jail ("confess or go to jail"); the detective denied promising probation or threats, and claimed he paraphrased what Cervantez said.
The trial court found both statements voluntary and made findings on the record at the suppression hearing; Cervantez renewed an "improper inducement" objection at trial which was overruled and no new written findings were issued.
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed, deferring to the trial court’s credibility determinations and finding the court’s prior findings adequate to address the later inducement objection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Oct. 3 written statement was involuntary because procured by improper inducement/fraud	Cervantez: detective promised probation and threatened prison, inducing a false/confessed statement; State failed to prove voluntariness by preponderance	State (and trial court): detective denied promises/threats; Cervantez’s testimony not fully credible; record supports voluntariness	Court of Appeals: trial court did not abuse discretion; findings that statements were voluntary stand
Whether the trial court’s on‑the‑record findings satisfied art. 38.22 §6 after Cervantez raised the inducement objection at trial	Cervantez: court failed to make fresh findings addressing the new improper inducement objection and case should be abated/remanded	State: earlier suppression findings that defendant was not promised or threatened subsume the later objection; dictation into the record sufficed	Court of Appeals: findings made at suppression hearing were sufficient and applicable to the later objection; no remand needed

Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1986) (State bears burden to prove voluntariness by a preponderance)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1964) (hearing outside the jury required when voluntariness is challenged)
Alvarado v. State, 912 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (confessions involuntary where police overreaching overbears will)
Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (totality of circumstances and distinct theories for excluding statements)
Faulder v. State, 611 S.W.2d 630 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (State must show defendant waived privilege and that statement was voluntary)