Martinez, Cruz Franco, PD-1624-14

Background

Cruz Franco Martinez was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of children under 14 and sentenced to life in prison on each count; convictions were affirmed by the Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas).
Three adult daughters (two complainants and one rebuttal witness) testified that Martinez sexually abused them over multiple years; Martinez denied the allegations and offered alternate motives for their testimony.
During the State’s case-in-chief, Detective Lisette Rivera testified she attempted to speak with Martinez but he had been arrested, read his Miranda rights, and "exercised those rights and chose not to speak" — a single, isolated reference to post-arrest, post-Miranda silence.
Martinez objected at trial to that testimony as commenting on his right to remain silent; the trial court overruled the objection and allowed the testimony.
On appeal the Fifth Court of Appeals assumed error but applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b) (non-constitutional harmless-error standard) and concluded the single isolated reference was harmless given the strength of the State’s case; it modified the judgments to reflect sex-offender registration and victim ages and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Martinez)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Detective’s statement about Martinez’s post-arrest, post-Miranda silence violated Fifth/14th Amendments and Texas Const. art. I §10	Admission was a constitutionally impermissible comment on silence (Doyle implicit-assurance due-process claim); harm must be assessed under constitutional standard (Rule 44.2(a))	Statement was not objectionable or, alternatively, any error was harmless/isolated; Martinez failed to preserve some constitutional arguments	Court of Appeals assumed error but applied Rule 44.2(b) (non-constitutional harmlessness) and held the admission was harmless; convictions affirmed as modified
Whether Martinez preserved federal and state constitutional objections	Objection at trial preserved the issue for review	State contended objection was too general and cure was not requested, so preservation inadequate	Court of Appeals assumed preservation for purposes of analysis but noted State’s waiver arguments; did not reverse on preservation grounds
Whether the single reference warranted reversal under constitutional harmless-error test	Martinez argued Rule 44.2(a) applies and reversal required unless error made no contribution to conviction/punishment	State argued overwhelming evidence and isolated nature make error harmless	Court of Appeals applied Rule 44.2(b) and found fair assurance the error did not influence the jury; did not apply 44.2(a) constitutional standard
Trial-court judgments’ clerical errors (sex-offender registration and victim age)	Martinez noted inaccuracies in judgments	State did not dispute need for correction	Court of Appeals modified judgments to reflect registration requirement and that victims were under 14 and affirmed as modified

Key Cases Cited

Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (post-arrest silence cannot be used to impeach or comment on defendant’s silence because of Miranda-related due-process implications)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings; reliance for silence-protection principles)
Sanchez v. State, 707 S.W.2d 575 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (Texas precedent recognizing right to silence triggered by custody)
Barshaw v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (harmless-error analysis under Texas Rule 44.2(b) for nonconstitutional errors)
Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (reviewing entire record to calculate probable impact of error in harm analysis)
Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (factors for assessing whether improperly admitted evidence affected substantial rights)