Nelson, Mona Yvette
PD-0390-15
Tex. App.May 8, 2015Background
- Nelson was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison after a non-jury trial.
- Police interviewed Nelson multiple times; she invoked the right to counsel during the third interview.
- During the van ride to jail, investigators discussed the case in the front seat with the radio up to keep her from hearing, and she later confessed.
- The Fourth Interview occurred after she waived counsel; she admitted to contributing to the crime.
- The trial court denied suppression of the fourth interview; on appeal, the First Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The petition seeks discretionary review to challenge the Court of Appeals’ analysis of whether interrogation after counsel request violated Miranda/Edwards standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals adequately analyzed totality of circumstances | Nelson | Nelson | No; inadequate totality analysis; potential coercive techniques ignored. |
| Whether describing gruesome details during transport violated right to counsel | Nelson | Nelson | No; conduct amounted to non-interrogation under Innis standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1990) (custodial interrogation after counsel request forbidden; must cease.)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (must cease interrogation upon request for counsel; waiver rules apply.)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (interrogation includes words or actions likely to elicit; brief remarks may not be interrogation.)
- Cross v. State, 144 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (when invoking counsel, further conversation requires initiation by suspect to waive rights.)
- Pecina v. State, 361 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standards for reviewing suppression rulings; deference to trial court on factual questions.)
- Moran v. State, 213 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (definition of interrogation and totality of circumstances.)
- Leza v. State, 351 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (analysis of law-to-fact questions; credibility matters.)
- In re Rhode Island v. Innis, Innis cited above (—) (context for functional equivalent of interrogation; brief remarks.)
- Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1977) (Christian burial speech; differences with Innis; not controlling here.)
- Hereford v. State, 339 S.W.3d 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standard of sufficiency for suppression rulings.)