Smith, Carl Lee, PD-0795-15

Background

On Jan. 5, 2009 Curtis Veazie was found murdered behind a strip center; evidence suggested multiple assailants and an AK‑47 caliber round. Some witnesses placed Carl Lee Smith ("Smith") with co‑defendants earlier that night; Smith consistently denied being present but later made inculpatory statements to police.
Investigators brought Smith from the courthouse jury room on Jan. 14, 2009 for recorded interviews; he asked for counsel during that interview, later consulted his attorney, then continued to speak. He was again interviewed in custody on Dec. 3, 2009 while jailed on unrelated charges and gave a recorded statement after Miranda warnings.
Smith moved to suppress his January and December statements, arguing custodial interrogation without adequate counsel access and invocation of rights; the trial court denied suppression and admitted the recordings.
Smith was tried for capital murder (alleged robbery‑murder as a co‑conspirator), convicted by a jury, and sentenced to life without parole. The 14th Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion.
On appeal Smith raised: (1) admission of autopsy/crime‑scene photos (Rule 403); (2) legal sufficiency of the evidence; (3) suppression/Miranda and right‑to‑counsel claims for the Jan. and Dec. statements (Fifth and Sixth Amendment and Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 38.22 & 1.051); and (4) a challenge to assessed court costs for lack of a bill of costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Smith)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1. Admission of autopsy/crime‑scene photographs (Rule 403)	Photographs were cumulative and unfairly prejudicial; should be excluded.	Photos were probative to show brutality, mechanics of death, and were not emphasized in closing; any error harmless.	Court found any error non‑harmful given overwhelming evidence; admission did not affect substantial rights.
2. Sufficiency of evidence for capital murder (directed verdict)	Evidence insufficient to place Smith at scene or show common design to commit robbery‑murder.	Smith's own recorded statements, witness testimony, and circumstantial evidence supported conspiracy/party liability.	Court held evidence sufficient to support conviction as co‑conspirator under party liability rules.
3. Suppression of Jan. 14 and Dec. 3 statements (Miranda / right to counsel / art. 38.22 / art. 1.051)	Jan. and Dec. statements should be suppressed: Jan. interview was custodial and counsel was requested and denied; Dec. interview was custodial and Smith invoked right to counsel.	Jan. interviews were non‑custodial; Smith did not unambiguously invoke right to counsel during Dec. interview and voluntarily answered after warnings; Sixth Amendment not triggered for unrelated preexisting counsel.	Court held Jan. 14 interview was non‑custodial so no Miranda violation; Dec. 3 statement admissible because Smith did not unambiguously invoke counsel and voluntarily answered after warnings; suppression denied.
4. Assessment of court costs (bill of costs)	No bill of costs in record, so costs unsupported.	Record contains a signed and certified Criminal Bill of Costs totaling assessed amount.	Court found a properly signed and certified bill of costs in the record and upheld the assessment.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (constitutional rule requiring warnings for custodial interrogation)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (police must cease reinitiated interrogation after clear assertion of right to counsel)
Pecina v. State, 361 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (discussion of Edwards rule and protections against police badgering)
Gobert v. State, 275 S.W.3d 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (clarifies that ambiguous requests for counsel do not require police to stop questioning)
Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (request for counsel must be clear and unambiguous)
Lucas v. State, 791 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (right to counsel considered invoked when accused indicates desire to have attorney present)