Tommy James Copeland v. State
12-16-00333-CR
Tex. App.Sep 20, 2017Background
- On Feb. 9, 2014, Officer Haley responded to a report of a possibly intoxicated driver and encountered two drivers, including appellant Tommy Copeland.
- Officer Haley observed signs of intoxication in Copeland (alcohol odor, slurred speech) and had him exit his vehicle while awaiting a trooper.
- Trooper Skinner questioned Copeland and recorded answers on a form titled “DWI Interview with Legal Warnings.” Copeland refused to sign the form.
- At trial the State sought to admit the interview form; Copeland objected solely on the ground the form was not signed as required by Article 38.22. The trial court overruled the objection.
- The jury found Copeland guilty; court sentenced him but placed him on one year community supervision. Copeland appealed asserting the trial court erred by not conducting an Article 38.22 voluntariness hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Copeland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not conducting an Article 38.22 voluntariness hearing | The objection at trial was limited to lack of signature under Article 38.22; voluntariness was not timely raised, so no hearing required | The court should have held an Article 38.22 hearing on voluntariness because the interview form contained statements used against him | Court held Copeland did not timely or specifically raise voluntariness; no Article 38.22 hearing was required and issue not preserved on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Article 38.22 protects against involuntary statements and police overreaching)
- Creager v. State, 952 S.W.2d 852 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (voluntariness decided by totality of circumstances)
- Armstrong v. State, 718 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (factors showing overborne will include length/prolonged interrogation, denial of access, physical brutality)
- Ross v. State, 678 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (Article 38.22 hearing duty triggered by timely objection)
- Little v. State, 758 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (different trial objection than appellate complaint fails to preserve error)
- Lindley v. State, 635 S.W.2d 541 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (trial court need not make voluntariness findings when issue not raised)
- Swain v. State, 181 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (appellate complaints must comport with trial objections)