Eric Byron Crayton v. State
03-14-00570-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 29, 2015Background
- On Jan. 19, 2012 Thomas Kitto was stabbed at Canyon Falls RV Park; he died at the scene from chest wounds. Eyewitnesses saw Crayton pull a fixed‑blade knife from his hip, scramble, and then flee; a knife sheath and hat were recovered at the scene and later tested positive for Crayton’s DNA.
- Deputies stopped Crayton later that night; he fled on foot during the stop and was arrested. He was photographed and taken to the Comal County Sheriff’s Office.
- Detective Campbell twice read Crayton the Article 38.22 statutory warnings; Campbell recorded the warnings (audio). Video recording malfunctioned and was restarted before Sergeant Ward’s interview (video). Campbell told Crayton another officer would conduct the interview and remained in the room.
- Sergeant Ward interviewed Crayton (video). Crayton made inculpatory statements admitting stabbing Kitto and stating he disposed of the knife in Sorrell Creek; portions after a later, court‑found invocation of silence were suppressed. Multiple redactions were ordered pretrial; the redacted recordings were admitted at trial without objection.
- Jury acquitted Crayton of murder but convicted him of tampering with physical evidence; punishment (with habitual enhancements) was 35 years. Crayton appealed raising four points: (1) Article 38.22 recording/warnings sufficiency; (2) invocation of right to remain silent; (3) legal sufficiency on tampering (knowledge element); (4) corpus delecti/corroboration of confession re: knife disposal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Crayton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility under Art. 38.22 (warnings/recording continuity) | Warnings were properly given and recorded (audio); Campbell told Crayton another officer would interview him; less than an hour elapsed; sessions are one continuous interview under Bible factors so Ward’s recorded interview is admissible. | The warnings were not on the same recording as the video and the break plus intoxication made the video a separate, unwarned interview. | Court admitted redacted recordings; State argues trial court’s factual findings support continuity and admission. |
| 2. Invocation of right to remain silent | Most candidate statements were ambiguous; only one unambiguous invocation was found by trial court (and material after it was suppressed); admitted portions were not barred because Crayton waived or continued speaking. | Crayton contends he attempted to terminate questioning and invoked his right to remain silent; therefore subsequent statements are inadmissible. | Trial court found a single unambiguous invocation and suppressed what followed; the remainder (admitted) was not an unambiguous invocation. |
| 3. Legal sufficiency of tampering conviction (knowledge an investigation/ offense was pending) | Circumstantial and direct evidence (pulling knife, fleeing scene, bystanders flagging him down, flight from Deputy Koepp, admissions to Ward that he stabbed Kitto and threw the knife in Sorrell Creek) support that Crayton knew an investigation or offense was pending; sufficient proof for tampering under §§37.09(a) and (d). | Argued State failed to prove he knew an investigation was pending or that an offense had occurred when he disposed of the knife. | State argues, and trial jury found, that evidence sufficed to show knowledge; inconsistent verdict (acquittal on murder) does not negate sufficiency for tampering. |
| 4. Corpus delecti / corroboration of confession about disposing knife | Corpus delecti satisfied by eyewitnesses and physical evidence (knife sheath, wounds, shirt, blood, flight) corroborating that a stabbing occurred; closely‑related crimes doctrine applies so confession as to disposal need not be independently corroborated. | Crayton contends confession that he threw the knife in the creek lacked independent corroboration and should have been excluded. | State contends corpus delecti and closely related crimes exception were satisfied; confession admissible as corroborated in part by scene evidence and eyewitness testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bible v. State, 162 S.W.3d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (four‑factor test for whether separated interview sessions constitute one continuous interview under Art. 38.22)
- Ex parte Bagley, 509 S.W.2d 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (interrupted interview may still be single interview for admissibility)
- Franks v. State, 712 S.W.2d 858 (Tex. App. Houston 1986) (consideration of breaks and change of interviewing officers in continuity analysis)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (constitutional right against compelled incrimination and custodial warnings)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (silence does not equal invocation; waiver may be implied by speaking)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (invocation must be unambiguous; officers may seek clarification of ambiguous statements)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal sufficiency standard: evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict)
- Fisher v. State, 851 S.W.2d 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (corpus delecti rule requires some independent evidence that crime occurred)
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (1932) (inconsistent jury verdicts do not invalidate convictions)