Rafael Trevino v. State, 13-14-00747-CR

Background

Infant Liliana Trevino died on Nov. 3–4, 2010; autopsy later ruled cause of death cranial-cerebral blunt force injury and multiple impact sites.
Rafael Trevino (boyfriend/parent) was the child’s primary caregiver; police interviewed him at the homicide office on Nov. 5, 2010 and recorded the interview on DVD (State’s Exhibit 12).
During the interview Trevino initially gave nonincriminating accounts, but after detectives escalated confrontation he admitted at various times that the child fell and later that he shook her; he was never read Miranda warnings before or during the interview.
Defense made an oral motion to suppress the unwarned custodial statements (identifying 6:17:28 on the DVD as the critical time). The trial judge reviewed a ~20-minute excerpt and denied the motion, but did not sign written findings/conclusions.
The DVD was admitted at trial over objection; Trevino was convicted of murder by a jury and sentenced to 27 years. On appeal counsel argues the post-6:17:28 statements were custodial, Miranda warnings were required, and the trial court failed to enter mandatory findings — asking the court to abate for findings and to reverse for suppression error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Trevino)	Held
Were Trevino’s unwarned statements custodial after 6:17:28 of the recorded interview?	Statements were voluntary and the setting was noncustodial; detectives told Trevino he was free to leave at times.	The interrogation became custodial after 6:17:28 because detectives created a situation that would make a reasonable innocent person feel freedom of movement was significantly restricted.	Trial court denied suppression after viewing an excerpt; appellate briefing argues error and requests abatement for findings.
Did the trial court comply with Article 38.22 §6 by making written findings/conclusions on voluntariness?	(State) The court’s oral ruling sufficed to resolve admissibility; no express argument recorded that written findings were required.	(Trevino) Article 38.22 requires written findings when voluntariness is challenged; no such findings were entered, so appeal must be abated and remanded for findings.	Trial court made no written findings; appellant moves to abate for findings.
If Miranda was violated, was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?	(State) Any Miranda error was harmless given the totality of evidence (medical testimony, autopsy).	(Trevino) The unwarned admissions prompted the arrest and indictment and were central to conviction; Miranda violation is constitutional error requiring reversal unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.	Appellant contends error is not harmless; court must analyze harm if it reaches the merits.
Did defense preserve error despite being an oral motion to suppress and judge viewing only part of the tape?	(State) Oral motion and proceeding were sufficient; judge’s on-record review and ruling preserved admissibility determination.	(Trevino) Oral suppression properly preserved error; but lack of written findings requires abatement per precedent.	Appellant cites precedent that oral suppression can preserve error but mandatory written findings are still required when voluntariness contested.

Key Cases Cited

Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standards for reviewing voluntariness and appellate deference)
Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Crim. App.) (reasonable-person custody test presupposes an innocent person)
Gardner v. State, 396 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App.) (situations that may constitute custody)
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for suppression rulings)
Herrera v. State, 241 S.W.3d 520 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Miranda/Article 38.22 discussion)
Urias v. State, 155 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. Crim. App.) (mandate that trial court enter written findings when voluntariness of statement is challenged)
Wicker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. Crim. App.) (procedure when written findings are omitted; remand/abatement)