Roderick Beham v. State
06-14-00174-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Jul 23, 2015Background
- Roderick Beham was convicted by a Bowie County jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 25 years; he appealed raising five points of error.
- Beham moved to suppress a recorded post-arrest statement made after his Arkansas arrest; the recording contained equivocal references to wanting a lawyer and statements like “I want to see what you’ve got to say first.”
- Detective Giddens continued the interview to clarify Beham’s statements and reminded him he could stop questioning; the trial court reviewed the recording in camera and denied the suppression motion.
- Defense attempted to cross-examine co-defendant/witness Arneshia Hall about the precise offense she was on probation for (a weapons charge); the court sustained the State’s Rule 403 objection and limited that specific inquiry, but allowed that she was on probation generally.
- During punishment the State elicited extraneous-bad-act testimony (jail infractions, assault, theft, gang signs); the trial court admitted those matters under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.07 §3(a).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Beham's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying motion to suppress recorded statement (Miranda/Davis invocation) | Beham’s on-record remarks were ambiguous; detective permissibly clarified and the statement "I want to see what you’ve got to say first" showed he didn’t unambiguously invoke counsel; Sixth Amendment had not attached pre-charge | Beham argues his references to wanting a lawyer were an invocation and questioning should have ceased | Denied — court upheld admission: invocation was ambiguous under Davis; clarification permitted; Sixth Amendment not yet attached |
| Whether exclusion of the specific probation-offense (weapons charge) violated confrontation/cross-examination rights | The State contends defense failed to make an adequate offer of proof and the weapons-detail lacked the necessary logical connection to bias under Carpenter | Beham contends the weapons probation detail was probative to show bias/motive to lie | Denied — exclusion not reversible: no offer of proof; insufficient causal link between probation offense and bias (Carpenter) |
| Whether admission of extraneous crimes/bad acts at punishment was improper | The State argues extraneous acts were admissible under art. 37.07 §3(a) and trial court reasonably found relevance and probative value outweighed prejudice | Beham argues admission unfairly prejudiced punishment | Denied — admission within trial court’s discretion; even if error, any effect was harmless given the record |
| Whether any asserted evidentiary errors were harmful to substantial rights | The State asserts errors (if any) were non-constitutional or harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given surveillance evidence and punishment evidence | Beham argues errors affected his conviction/punishment | Denied — reviewing court finds any error non-reversible or harmless under applicable harmless-error standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (clarifies that invocation of right to counsel must be unambiguous)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warning and right to remain silent/counsel before custodial interrogation)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (harmless-error standard for improper restriction of cross-examination)
- Carpenter v. State, 979 S.W.2d 633 (Tex. Crim. App.) (requires logical connection between pending charge/probation and witness bias for admissibility)
- Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discusses ambiguity standard for invoking rights and scope of Miranda protections)