Background

• Capital murder case; suppression hearing held Jan 2014; Parker convicted of manslaughter as lesser included offense; jury sentenced to life; Court of Appeals affirmed non-published memorandum; petition seeks discretionary review on suppression issue; in-car video captured custodial interrogation of Parker; trial court denied suppression; Parker argues violation of 38.22 and removal of all evidence tied to illegal interrogation.
• Parker was placed in the back seat of a police cruiser for 1 hour 16 minutes in the “cage,” with the door open for a period and an officer kneeling by the door while interrogation occurred.
• The in-car video allegedly shows interrogation without Miranda warnings; later interrogations at the station followed; evidence obtained linked to the prior interrogation is challenged.
• Texas Article 38.22 provides warnings and waivers for custodial interrogations; 38.22 §5 allows non-custodial statements to be admitted.
• Appellant contends the custody analysis should render the statements inadmissible; the State contends Parker was not in custody at the time of the interview in the cruiser.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (custody factors and ad hoc analysis for custody determinations)
• Rivera v. State, 808 S.W.2d 80 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (standard for suppression factual review)
• Shiflet v. State, 732 S.W.2d 622 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985) (custody considerations in presence of danger/scene)
• Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (custody determination framework)
• Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine (not applicable to Texas 38.23))
• Garcia v. State, 829 S.W.2d 796 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (inevitable discovery not adopted in Texas; 38.23 governing suppression)
• Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (custody/voluntariness analysis citied in decision)
• State v. Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (exclusionary rule application and causal nexus)