Raul Trevino Lara Jr. v. State
13-14-00123-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 14, 2015Background
- Appellant Raul Lara challenged admission of two written custodial statements at trial, arguing statutory Miranda/Article 38.22 defects and involuntariness.
- The statements contained printed warnings and an explicit waiver on their face but were not produced in written form until the end of each interview; warnings were given orally at the outset of the interviews.
- Investigators re‑advised Lara before the second interview; testimony established warnings were given before substantive questioning in both interviews.
- Lara contended interview tactics (e.g., telling him investigators had other evidence and suggesting he would "go down") rendered the confessions involuntary and that the delay in producing written forms created a "question first/warn later" problem.
- The State argued the written waivers substantially complied with Tex. Code Crim. P. art. 38.22 and that the interviewing techniques were permissible psychological tactics that did not amount to coercion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Art. 38.22 (warnings/waiver on face) | Lara: Waivers invalid because forms were not printed until after questioning; therefore noncompliant with statute | State: Oral warnings were given at outset; printed forms merely memorialized warnings; waivers substantially complied with statute | Court upheld admission — waivers were adequate and substantially complied with Art. 38.22 |
| "Question first/warn later" (Siebert) | Lara: Delay in producing written form created a Siebert‑type coercive technique | State: Interviews did not follow the deliberate question‑first method condemned in Siebert; warnings were timely given | Court rejected Siebert claim — warnings given before substantive questioning |
| Voluntariness (coercive interview tactics) | Lara: Investigators’ statements about other evidence and inevitability of conviction coerced confession | State: Such psychological ploys are permissible; no threats or coercion shown; confession resulted from defendant’s own choice | Court held statements voluntary — tactics not coercive enough to vitiate voluntariness |
| Sufficiency of waiver language | Lara: Form wording and timing insufficient to show knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver | State: Wording substantially equivalent to statutory purpose and similar to prior approved waivers (Sosa, Castellan) | Court found waiver language sufficient and in substantial compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Siebert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (condemns deliberate question‑first, warn‑later interrogation technique)
- Bible v. State, 162 S.W.3d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reissuance of warnings not required in certain circumstances)
- Garcia v. State, 919 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (evaluating sufficiency of waiver language and suppression standards)
- Sosa v. State, 769 S.W.2d 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (substantial compliance with statutory warning language is sufficient)
- Castellan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001) (upholding waiver despite differing phrasing when requirements are met)
- Hernandez v. State, 421 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014) (police use of certain psychological tactics does not automatically render confession involuntary)