Delmar Alfredo Flores v. State
05-16-00576-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Victim A.R., then 11, disclosed sexual abuse at school; a CPS forensic interview (Mar. 1, 2013) named stepfather Delmar Flores and his son M.R.; M.R. later confessed to abusing A.R. as alleged.
- Detective Chris Jones watched A.R.’s CAC interview and arranged to interview Flores at the Children’s Advocacy Center on Mar. 4, 2013; Flores arrived voluntarily.
- Jones read Flores Miranda warnings, gave him a written form which Flores read, initialed, and signed, and then conducted a recorded ~45-minute interview; Jones had obtained an arrest warrant before the interview but did not disclose it and arrested Flores after the interview.
- During the interview Flores made statements admitting some inappropriate interactions (e.g., that A.R. had shown him her breasts; conceding blackout-level drinking), and he did not request counsel or stop the interview.
- Medical exam of A.R. was normal (no trauma); at trial A.R. was hesitant and often said "I don’t know," but agreed the medical note describing Flores placing his mouth on her vaginal area over clothing was true.
- Jury convicted Flores of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 and assessed five years’ imprisonment; Flores appealed arguing (1) the interview statements should have been suppressed as involuntary and (2) the evidence was insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Flores) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying suppression of Flores’s recorded interview | Jones gave statutory warnings, Flores read/initialed/signed and voluntarily waived rights; statements admissible | Flores lacked understanding due to limited education/Spanish background, was unaware of preexisting arrest warrant, and therefore did not validly waive rights | Trial court did not abuse discretion; waiver voluntary and statements admissible |
| Whether evidence is sufficient to sustain aggravated sexual assault conviction | Victim’s testimony and Flores’s interview statements, plus corroborating background and jury credibility findings, suffice | A.R.’s testimony was inconsistent/unwilling and medical exam was normal; insufficiency of proof argued | Viewing evidence most favorably to verdict, rational juror could convict; sufficiency upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. State, 204 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- Alford v. State, 358 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (deference to trial court on factual findings and mixed questions tied to credibility)
- Johnson v. State, 414 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (review of trial-court findings on suppression)
- Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (voluntariness under article 38.22 and totality of circumstances analysis)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson standard controls sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (evidence sufficiency standard)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (totality-of-circumstances approach to voluntariness)
- Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1987) (limits on required disclosures for valid Miranda waiver)
- Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (a suspect need not be informed of all consequences to validly waive Miranda)