Eric Byron Crayton v. State, 03-14-00570-CR

Background

Defendant Eric Byron Crayton was tried on charges of murder and tampering with physical evidence arising from the January 19, 2012 stabbing death of Thomas Kitto; jury acquitted him of murder but convicted him of tampering and sentenced him to 35 years.
After arrest, Crayton was Mirandized and audio-recorded by Deputy Campbell; ~45 minutes later Deputy Ward interrogated Crayton on a separate recording that did not include the Miranda/38.22 warnings.
On Ward’s tape Crayton repeatedly said variants of “I’m done,” “take me to my cell,” and “I don’t want to talk,” yet later on that same tape he made an inculpatory statement that he threw the knife into Sorrell Creek.
Law enforcement never recovered the knife despite searches of Crayton’s residence, truck, and the creek; bloody clothing was seized at Crayton’s home.
Crayton filed a suppression motion arguing (1) the Ward recording failed to comply with Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22 because the required warnings were not recorded on that tape, and (2) Ward continued questioning after Crayton unambiguously invoked his right to cut off questioning. The trial court found Campbell’s warnings covered the overall interview but ruled that statements after Crayton’s final “take me to my cell” were inadmissible; nevertheless a redacted Ward tape was admitted at trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Crayton)	Held (trial court / trial result)
1) Admission under art. 38.22 §3(a)(2) — recorded warnings requirement	Ward’s recording was part of a single interview; Campbell’s recorded warnings satisfied the statute for the subsequent recording	Ward’s tape (PT SEX 6) lacked the required recorded warnings and therefore should be suppressed as a separate recording	Trial court concluded Campbell’s warnings applied to the interview overall but excluded statements after 26:03 on PT SEX 6; a redacted Ward tape was admitted and used at trial
2) Miranda invocation / continuing interrogation	Statements after Crayton’s purported invocation were voluntary and admissible	Crayton repeatedly and unambiguously invoked his right to stop; questioning thereafter violated Miranda and rendered subsequent statements inadmissible	Trial court found Crayton invoked his right at a marked point and excluded later material, but admitted earlier portions including the statement that he threw the knife; jury heard the redacted tape
3) Sufficiency — knowledge an investigation was pending or in progress	Circumstantial evidence and Crayton’s statement that he disposed of the knife supported knowledge of an investigation/pending inquiry	Crayton left with the knife before police were notified; no proof he knew an investigation was pending or in progress at the time he discarded it	Jury found sufficient evidence and convicted on tampering; Crayton appealed sufficiency arguing acquittal warranted
4) Corpus delicti / corroboration of extrajudicial confession	Independent evidence (missing knife, bloody clothing, searches, and investigative facts) sufficiently corroborated Crayton’s admission about disposal	The only independent evidence is inability to find the knife; that alone does not corroborate the confession sufficiently under the corpus delicti rule	Jury convicted on tampering; Crayton contends appellate relief is required for lack of independent corroboration

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation warnings and right to silence)
Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (bifurcated review of suppression findings)
Bible v. State, 162 S.W.3d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (factors for determining whether sequential recordings constitute a single interview for art. 38.22)
Fisher v. State, 851 S.W.2d 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (corpus delicti/corroboration requirement for extrajudicial confessions)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard explained)
Barshaw v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (harmless-error analysis for improperly admitted evidence)