Martinez, Robert John Anthony, PD-1250-15

Background

Defendant Robert J. A. Martinez was arrested after the November 19, 2012 stabbing death of Angel Perez; initially charged with possession of marijuana and later indicted for murder.
Police interviewed Martinez multiple times; an early, non‑videotaped interview (about cell phones and other matters) preceded a later videotaped interview in which Miranda/Art. 38.22 warnings were given and Martinez made an inculpatory statement.
Martinez moved to suppress the videotaped statement as the product of a “question‑first, warn‑later” midstream Miranda tactic; the trial court denied the motion.
At trial Martinez testified in his own defense; the jury convicted him of murder and assessed punishment at 50 years’ imprisonment.
On appeal the Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Martinez’s challenges to (1) admissibility of the videotaped statement under Art. 38.22/Miranda, (2) omission of a voluntariness instruction in the jury charge, (3) alleged improper comments by the trial judge during voir dire, and (4) denial of a mistrial for alleged prosecutorial misconduct during punishment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Martinez)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Admissibility of videotaped statement under Art. 38.22 / midstream Miranda (question‑first, warn‑later)	The videotaped statement was tainted by prior unwarned questioning and was a Seibert‑style two‑step interrogation; Art. 38.22 requirements were not met.	Officers testified Miranda/Art. 38.22 warnings were given before each interview; the first non‑videotaped interview was fact‑gathering about phones and not deliberate two‑step gamesmanship.	Court affirmed admission: record did not show deliberate question‑first, warn‑later tactic; trial court’s suppression ruling upheld.
Omission of voluntariness instruction under Art. 38.22 §6/§7	Trial court should have instructed jury on voluntariness because evidence raised a question whether the statement was voluntary.	No evidence at trial raised voluntariness for the jury; defendant failed to present disputed facts at trial requiring an instruction.	Court held no error: defendant did not present evidence at trial creating a reasonable jury issue on voluntariness, so no sua sponte instruction required.
Trial judge's voir dire comments about "knowing" guilt and reasonable doubt (Rule 605 / bias)	Judge’s comments improperly defined reasonable doubt and violated impartiality/fundamental rights.	Court's clarifying remarks were aimed at correcting juror confusion and did not express bias or testify; any error was slight.	Court held comments were judicial clarification, not testimonial; no fundamental error—issue overruled.
Denial of mistrial for prosecutor's personal anecdotes during punishment (prosecutorial misconduct)	Prosecutor disregarded rulings and injected personal life comparisons, prejudicing jury; denial of mistrial was an abuse of discretion.	Trial court promptly sustained objections, admonished counsel, and instructed jury to disregard; comments were slight and curable.	Court applied Mosley factors and found the misconduct slight, curative instruction adequate, and outcome not shown to be altered; denial of mistrial affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Missouri v. Siebert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (Supreme Court ruling invalidating deliberate two‑step "question‑first, warn‑later" interrogation).
Martinez v. State, 272 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (discussing inadmissibility of second statement after deliberate unwarned interrogation).
Hubert v. State, 312 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings).
Armendariz v. State, 123 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (appellate duty to uphold suppression ruling if supported by any applicable legal theory).
Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for mistrial and use of Mosley factors).