Dylan A. Tristani v. State
13-14-00422-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 27, 2015Background
- Appellant Dylan Tristani was convicted after a bench-tried criminal case; video/audio from officers' patrol car captured his statements during arrest and was admitted at trial after redaction.
- On voir dire Tristani asked venire members with prior jury service whether they had served, been foreman, whether a verdict was reached, and whether the judge or jury assessed punishment; the trial court disallowed the question about who assessed punishment.
- Several venire members reported prior jury service; Tristani sought additional peremptory strikes because he could not further question them about prior punishment roles; the trial court denied additional strikes.
- Tristani objected at trial to admission of the video segments on the ground he invoked his right to counsel; his counsel characterized the objection solely as an assertion of a clear invocation.
- The video contains ambiguous statements by Tristani (“can I get a lawyer?”, “I guess I’d like a lawyer,” “I guess so”) and officers’ remarks that one believed Tristani had invoked his rights.
- The State argues (and the trial court ruled) the invocation was ambiguous under an objective standard, so admission was proper; voir dire limits were within the court’s discretion and any error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether portions of the custodial video/audio had to be suppressed because Tristani invoked his right to counsel | Tristani: his statements amounted to an invocation of the right to counsel and the audio should be suppressed | State: statements were ambiguous/tentative; under an objective standard no unequivocal invocation occurred, so admission was proper | Court affirmed admission: ambiguous statements (e.g., "I guess") are not an unambiguous invocation under Davis/Dinkins/Dalton standard |
| Whether Tristani may raise on appeal the theory that ambiguous statements should have been excluded because they create an inference he invoked counsel (objection specificity/procedural default) | Tristani: (on appeal) video segments implied invocation and should have been excluded for that reason | State: Tristani never preserved that specific objection at trial — counsel argued only an unequivocal invocation — so the new theory is forfeited | Held: argument forfeited; trial objections were limited to an asserted clear invocation, so alternative theory not preserved |
| Whether officer comments (other officers saying suspect invoked) required exclusion of that portion of video | Tristani: those remarks imply invocation and are prejudicial | State: no specific trial objection to that segment; even if objected it is same failed theory of an unequivocal invocation; the standard is objective not subjective belief | Held: preserved objection lacking or insufficient; in any event not a basis for exclusion because subjective officer belief does not convert ambiguous statements into an invocation |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by prohibiting voir dire questioning about whether judge or jury assessed punishment in prior juries and by denying extra peremptories | Tristani: he needed to know venire members' prior roles assessing punishment to intelligently exercise peremptories; denial harmed him | State: such questions invade the specifics of prior verdicts, are within court's broad voir dire control, and were irrelevant here because defendant waived jury punishment | Held: trial court acted within discretion to limit voir dire; any error was harmless because punishment issues were irrelevant (defendant elected judge for punishment) and no improper denial of challenge for cause was shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 2350 (1994) (a suspect must make an unambiguous request for counsel; ambiguous references do not invoke the right)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (adopts objective standard; equivocal references to counsel are not invocation)
- Dalton v. State, 248 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (statements including "I guess" held equivocal and not an invocation)
- Blackman v. State, 414 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (trial courts retain discretion over scope of voir dire; may allow but are not required to permit line of questioning about prior juries)
- Hardie v. State, 807 S.W.2d 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (audio that shows a suspect invoking rights must be suppressed, but only where a valid invocation occurs)
- Comeaux v. State, 445 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (harm from loss of a peremptory due to erroneous denial of a challenge for cause can be reversible when properly preserved)