476 S.W.3d 724
Tex. App.2015Background
- At ~10:30 p.m. a masked armed robbery occurred at a Country Inn & Suites; surveillance later tied Beham to similar clothing seen at a Walmart where an accomplice (Arneisha Hall) attempted to use stolen gift cards. Beham was arrested, gave a recorded statement, and was convicted of aggravated robbery; sentenced to 25 years.
- Beham moved to suppress his custodial statement claiming he invoked his rights to counsel and to remain silent; the trial court denied the motion and the recorded statement was admitted.
- Hall pled guilty to related charges and testified for the State as an accomplice; Beham’s cross-examination of Hall regarding her probationary status was curtailed by the trial court.
- During punishment the State elicited testimony about Beham’s prior contacts/charges (including dismissed Tennessee juvenile charges and an adjudicated Texas misdemeanor theft) and in-custody infractions; the defense objected.
- The court affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded for a new punishment trial, finding improper admission of certain extraneous-offense evidence at sentencing under Rule 403 balancing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Beham) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beham unambiguously invoked his right to counsel during custodial interrogation | Statements (e.g., "I was gonna try to see if I could get a lawyer") were ambiguous and did not require cessation of questioning | Beham: his remarks unambiguously invoked counsel and required interrogation to stop; statements thereafter inadmissible | Court: invocation was ambiguous under Davis/Berghuis standards; no suppression (affirmed) |
| Whether Beham invoked his right to remain silent at the outset of the interview | Warnings were given; Beham continued to speak and waived by conduct | Beham: he indicated he wanted to remain silent and thus questioning should have ceased | Court: totality shows no clear invocation of right to remain silent; denial of suppression proper (affirmed) |
| Whether exclusion of cross-examining accomplice about being on probation violated Confrontation/cross-examination rights | Probation status irrelevant absent a showing of a connection to bias or plea/benefit; trial court within discretion to limit | Beham: probing probation for bias was relevant (opportunity to inform probation officer) and exclusion violated confrontation | Court: no plausible connection shown between probation and bias; exclusion within trial court’s discretion (affirmed) |
| Whether extraneous-offense evidence at punishment was admissible and whether its admission was more prejudicial than probative (Art. 37.07 / Tex. R. Evid. 403) | Article 37.07 permits broad punishment-phase evidence; testimony about prior contacts was relevant to sentencing | Beham: the Tennessee allegations were unproven/dismissed and their admission (and prosecutor’s mischaracterization) was unfairly prejudicial | Court: failed to preserve Article 37.07 threshold argument at trial, but on preserved Rule 403 objection court abused discretion admitting unsubstantiated Tennessee contacts; prejudice required new punishment trial (sentence reversed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (invocation of right to counsel must be unambiguous)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (Miranda invocation must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would understand request for counsel)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation and rights to counsel and to remain silent)
- Sims v. State, 273 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (broad relevancy standard for punishment-phase evidence)
- Mozon v. State, 991 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Rule 403 presumption of admissibility; reversal only for clear abuse of discretion)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (Rule 403 balancing framework)