Fienen, Casey Ray
390 S.W.3d 328
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Casey Fienen was arrested for DWI after driving erratically and failing field sobriety tests.
- Officer Barker read warnings and offered breath or blood options; Appellant initially refused both.
- Barker requested a blood search warrant at hospital after Appellant refused; Appellant questioned the process.
- Appellant eventually consented to a breath test after discussing needles and blood draws.
- Trial court denied suppression; Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed admission of breath-test results.
- This Court granted discretionary review to address the voluntariness standard and Erdman’s applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barker’s statements were coercive under Erdman | Fienen argues Erdman controls and warnings were coercive | State contends Erdman is inapplicable and warnings were not coercive | Erdman overruled; voluntariness assessed under totality of circumstances |
| Whether the State proved voluntary consent by clear and convincing evidence | State must prove voluntariness despite Appellant’s questions | Appellant contends coercive warnings biased decision | Yes; State proved voluntary consent by clear and convincing evidence |
| How to apply the totality-of-circumstances test in consent to a breath test | Totality approach prevents relying on single statements | No coercion found given circumstances and conduct | Court upheld trial court’s finding of voluntariness under totality of circumstances |
| Whether post-Erdman rulings misapplied burden of proof in coercion analysis | Extra-statutory warnings presumed coercive; burden on State | Burden remains with State to prove voluntariness after raising issue | Overruled Erdman; burden to prove voluntariness remains with State under Meekins guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- Erdman v. State, 861 S.W.2d 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (warns about non-statutory consequences and places burden on State to show voluntariness)
- Hall v. State, 649 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (coercion analysis despite questioning by suspect)
- Sells v. State, 798 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990) (progeny on preservation of voluntariness burden)
- Meekins v. State, 340 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (totality-of-circumstances standard for voluntariness; State bears burden)
- Weaver v. State, 349 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard for voluntary consent)
- Montanez v. State, 195 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (framework for reviewing historical facts and law)