395 S.W.3d 161
Tex. Crim. App.2013Background
- Appellant was 16 when charged with aggravated robbery and given Miranda warnings by a magistrate under Tex. Fam. Code §51.095(a)(1)(A).
- There is conflicting testimony about whether two armed officers were present during the warnings.
- Appellant was interrogated by police after warnings and confessed to the charged robbery and other offenses.
- The written confession was signed by Appellant and later reviewed by a magistrate.
- At trial, Appellant moved to suppress the signed statement as improperly obtained, but the motion was denied.
- The court of appeals affirmed; the issue presented to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerned the presence of law-enforcement officers during the warnings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §51.095(a)(1)(A) prohibits officers' presence during warnings | Herring argues Diaz bars officers from warnings. | State contends §51.095(a)(1)(A) silent on presence; other subsections ban presence, but not this subsection. | Presence allowed; statute silent on prohibition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diaz v. State, 61 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (dicta that no officers may be present during warnings; relied on statutorily silent text)
- Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (statutory interpretation: clear, unambiguous text must be followed)
- Tyra v. State, 897 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (policy arguments not controlling statutory construction)