Robert John Anthony Martinez A/K/A Roberto Martinez A/K/A Robert John Martinez A/K/A Robert Martinez v. State, 13-13-00714-CR

Background

On November 19, 2012, Robert John Anthony Martinez stabbed and killed Angel Perez; Perez received over 18 stab wounds. Martinez was later arrested and initially charged with possession of marijuana; murder indictment followed.
Martinez was interviewed twice by San Benito police: an unrecorded initial interview (officers said they were gathering cellphone information) during which Martinez admitted stabbing Perez, then a videotaped, Mirandized interview pursuant to Article 38.22.
Martinez moved to suppress the videotaped statement, arguing the officers used a forbidden “question-first, warn-later” technique; the trial court denied the motion after a suppression hearing where officers testified they warned Martinez before questioning.
At trial Martinez testified in his own defense and admitted stabbing Perez; the jury convicted him of murder and sentenced him to 50 years’ imprisonment.
On appeal Martinez raised four issues: (1) inadmissibility of the videotaped statement under Art. 38.22; (2) failure to include a voluntariness instruction in the jury charge; (3) trial judge comments about reasonable doubt during State voir dire; and (4) alleged prosecutorial misconduct during punishment leading to a mistrial request. The court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Martinez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Admissibility of videotaped statement under Art. 38.22 (question-first/warn-later)	The videotaped statement was product of a deliberate question-first, warn-later technique and thus inadmissible.	Officers testified they warned Martinez before questioning and the second, videotaped statement complied with Art. 38.22; any initial, brief unrecorded talk was not deliberate two-step evasion.	Court held no Seibert-style deliberate two-step; videotaped statement admissible.
2. Omission of voluntariness jury instruction	Trial court should have sua sponte instructed jury on voluntariness under Art. 38.22 §6 because voluntariness was contested.	No evidence at trial raised a voluntariness dispute; Martinez never testified he was coerced or lacked warnings, so no instruction was required.	Court held no error: voluntariness issue not raised by the evidence, so no instruction required.
3. Trial court comments on reasonable doubt during State voir dire	Judge’s comments invaded jury function / violated Rule 605 and Martinez’s right to an impartial judge; fundamental error.	Judge merely clarified juror confusion about reasonable doubt and did not testify to facts or show bias; any error was slight.	Court held judge’s clarification was within judicial function, not testimony; no fundamental error.
4. Prosecutor misconduct during punishment (request for mistrial)	Prosecutor’s personal, improper statements and refusal to follow rulings prejudiced jury; mistrial required.	Trial court promptly sustained objections, admonished prosecutor, and instructed jury to disregard; any error cured and not so prejudicial as to require mistrial.	Court held misconduct, while improper, was slight; curative instruction sufficient and mistrial denial not an abuse of discretion.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (establishes Miranda warnings and custodial-interrogation waiver requirements)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (condemns deliberate two-step question-first, warn-later interrogation)
Martinez v. State, 272 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (two-step interrogation analysis under Texas law)
Carter v. State, 309 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (distinguishes inadvertent failure to warn from deliberate question-first gamesmanship)
Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Almanza/egregious-harm standard for unpreserved jury-charge error)
Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Mosley factors and review of mistrial denial for prosecutorial misconduct)