Ervin v. State
333 S.W.3d 187
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Ervin was convicted of capital murder of Brady Davis; jury found guilt; punishment automatically life without parole since death penalty not sought.
- Appellant challenges sufficiency of the evidence and three police statements admitted at trial as Miranda/Missouri v. Seibert issues.
- Officers investigated Davis along with the Aparece/Ngo disappearances; Ervin lived with her mother and dated one suspect; she drove the suspects to the carwash where the Davis murder occurred.
- Ervin signed consent to search her black Nissan Sentra; she was transported to the police station in a patrol car but was not cuffed or formally under arrest during the early questioning.
- Three statements were admitted: two unwarned written statements (Aparece/Ngo and Davis contexts) and a third recorded statement after Miranda warnings; trial court found no custody in the first two and admissible third; appellate court upheld admission.
- Dissent argues MD/Seibert two-step tactic was deliberate and would require reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence under conspiracy theory | Ervin not guilty as conspirator | State proved conspiracy and participation | Evidence legally/factually sufficient |
| Admission of first two unwarned written statements | Statements were custodial and unlawfully obtained | Ervin not in custody; warnings not required | Admissible; not custodial |
| Admission of third, warned statement after unwarned ones | Midstream warnings invalid; deliberate two-step tactic | No deliberate two-step; Elstad applies; third statement admissible | Admissible; no clear error in admitting third statement |
| Midstream warnings and curative steps under Seibert Martinez framework | Two-step strategy undermined Miranda | No deliberate strategy; curative measures adequate or unnecessary | No reversible error; curative analysis not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (factual/legal-sufficiency framework in Texas)
- Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (factural sufficiency/deference to jury credibility)
- Herrera v. State, 241 S.W.3d 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (custody determinations deferential to trial court)
- Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (four custody-indicia test for Miranda purposes)
- Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (custody analysis framework)
- Seibert v. Missouri, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (midstream warnings; deliberate two-step analysis)
- Elstad v. Oregon, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (law on admissibility after unwarned statement when no deliberate two-step tactic)
- Carter v. State, 309 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (adopted multi-factor Seibert framework; clear-error standard for intent)
- Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (custody and interrogation sequencing; unwarned then warned statements)