Timothy Morales v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 4744
Tex. App.2012Background
- Morales was convicted of injury to a child and sentenced to 55 years’ imprisonment.
- Baez, Morales’s three-year-old step-daughter, died from a stomach injury; autopsy showed forceful impact and lack of timely medical care may have contributed.
- Detectives interviewed Morales and Ragsdale at the sheriff’s office; two separate interrogations were recorded with hidden cameras and later admitted at trial; Morales agreed to a polygraph during the questioning.
- Morales did not receive Miranda warnings or Article 38.22 warnings before any statements were made during the nightlong interrogation.
- The indictment charged Morales with knowingly causing serious bodily injury by failing to seek timely medical attention as his step-parent with a duty to act; a motion to suppress and an objection to voluntariness were denied.
- The court issued a substitute opinion overruling the rehearing and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to charge general voluntariness under Article 38.22, §6 | Morales argues voluntariness instruction was required | State contends no error because no involuntariness evidence existed and error was not preserved | No reversible error; no reasonable jury could find involuntariness; Section 6 instruction not required |
| Whether the trial court properly denied suppression given lack of warnings and custody determination | Morales contends he was in custody and should have received warnings | State asserts no custody for Miranda purposes; suppression denial appropriate | Denial of motion to suppress affirmed; Morales not in custody for purposes of warnings |
Key Cases Cited
- Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (outlines types of voluntariness instructions and the framework for Section 6)
- Vasquez v. State, 225 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (involuntariness considerations and when Section 6 instruction may be required)
- Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Section 6 instructions not required where no reasonable basis for involuntariness exists)
- Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (custody analysis for Miranda purposes and factors influencing custody)
- Chapman v. State, 921 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (preservation of error when requesting incorrect charge; context for invited error)