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

Background

Eric Byron Crayton appeals his conviction(s) arising from the January 19, 2012 stabbing of Kitto; he was recorded making statements that he went to the scene, stabbed Kitto, and said he threw the knife in Sorrell Creek.
Two distinct recordings exist: an initial recorded interview with Deputy Campbell that contained Miranda‑type warnings and a later videotaped interview with Deputy Ward that did not include recorded 38.22 warnings.
Crayton was intoxicated, fell asleep after the first interview, and was awakened and interviewed by Ward ~45 minutes later without the statutory warnings being recorded.
During Ward’s interview, Crayton repeatedly said he was “done,” asked to be taken to his cell, and otherwise attempted to terminate questioning; Ward continued the interrogation.
The knife was not found despite searches of Crayton’s home, truck, and Sorrell Creek; the State relied in part on Crayton’s extrajudicial admission that he disposed of the knife.
Appellant’s reply brief raises four main challenges: (1) Art. 38.22 §3(a)(2) warning/recording violation for the Ward interview; (2) involuntary continuation of questioning after invocation of the right to remain silent; (3) insufficiency of evidence that Crayton knew an investigation or offense existed when he disposed of the knife; and (4) failure to produce independent corroboration for Crayton’s statement that he discarded the knife (corpus delicti/corroboration issue).

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held / Relief Sought
1) Admissibility under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22 §3(a)(2) — whether Ward’s recording is a separate statement requiring recorded warnings	Ward’s interview is a separate recording without the required 38.22 warnings (different interviewer, different subject matter, passage of time, intoxicated suspect); suppression required	State contends the prior warned interview sufficed and the two recordings are a continuation, not separate interviews	Appellant asks suppression of Ward recording and reversal or new trial (argues Bible factors favor suppression)
2) Invocation of right to remain silent — whether interrogation continued after a clear invocation	Crayton repeatedly said he was “done,” asked to be taken to his cell, and clearly attempted to terminate questioning; Ward unlawfully continued despite that invocation	State claims Crayton’s statements were ambiguous and could mean only ending a topic, not total cessation of questioning; thus no invocation	Appellant seeks exclusion of recorded statements after the point of invocation and reversal or new trial if admitted
3) Sufficiency of knowledge element for tampering with physical evidence (did Crayton know an investigation or offense existed when he disposed of the knife?)	Evidence insufficient: knife disposal occurred before authorities were notified; post‑disposal flight and post‑event lies cannot prove knowledge at time of disposal; acquittal on murder undermines proof an offense had been committed	State argues circumstantial facts (flight, lies, post‑event admissions) support an inference Crayton knew an investigation/that an offense occurred	Appellant requests judgment of acquittal or reversal for insufficiency of evidence
4) Corpus delicti / corroboration — whether independent evidence corroborated Crayton’s confession about disposing the knife	No independent evidence established disposal or tampering beyond Crayton’s own statements; inability to find the knife is not independent proof; jury’s acquittal on murder precludes using that conduct as corroboration	State invokes corpus‑delicti doctrine and closely related crimes exception, arguing independent proof of criminal conduct supports admissibility	Appellant urges reversal because confession was not independently corroborated

Key Cases Cited

Bible v. State, 162 S.W.3d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (factors for determining whether successive recordings constitute separate statements)
Thomas v. State, 408 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (waiver and preservation of error; statements at trial do not always constitute waiver)
Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (invocation of right to terminate questioning need not use magic words)
Watson v. State, 762 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (Miranda principle that questioning must cease after invocation of right to remain silent)
Miller v. State, 457 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (closely related crimes exception to corpus delicti rule and its temporal limits)
Pannell v. State, 7 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999) (knowledge element for tampering: actor must know item was evidence at time of alteration/concealment)
Lumpkin v. State, 129 S.W.3d 659 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (interpretation of "pending" in tampering statute)
Graves v. State, 452 S.W.3d 907 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014) (insufficient proof of knowledge when defendant removed evidence before authorities were notified)