Tony Carrasco v. State, 07-14-00001-CR

Background

Tony Carrasco was indicted for burglary of a habitation (Oct. 14, 2012); State alleged two prior felony convictions to seek life-range enhancement.
Victim Heather White discovered forced entry and items stolen; no eyewitnesses or recovered stolen property linked to Carrasco at arrest.
Investigator Chris Covarrubias testified (initially) and described interviewing Carrasco after Mirandizing him; a videotaped interview contained Carrasco’s confession to the White burglary.
Carrasco testified he sold the stolen items, claimed his confession was false because he was under the influence of drugs and did not know he was being videotaped.
In rebuttal the State played the full interview tape and called an investigator who said Carrasco did not appear intoxicated; jury found Carrasco guilty.
At punishment, an investigator (Scifres) testified Carrasco, after being read Miranda and signing a waiver, confessed to five additional home burglaries; trial court found both enhancements true and sentenced Carrasco to life.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying mistrial after witness said he knew appellant during a “rash of burglaries”	Statement was prejudicial and required mistrial	Reference was inadvertent and harmless once court instructed jury to disregard	Denial of mistrial was not an abuse of discretion; curative instruction was adequate
Admissibility of extraneous-offense evidence (videotape & statements) during guilt/innocence	Extraneous offenses were prejudicial and inadmissible under Rule 404(b)	Evidence rebutted defense that confession was coerced/intoxicated and was highly probative of guilt	Admission was within trial court’s discretion; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice
Whether appellant’s videotaped confession was admissible when he allegedly didn’t know he was being recorded	Confession should be excluded because he lacked awareness of videotaping	Camera was visible and adjusted in appellant’s sight; objection overruled	Tape admissible; trial court reasonably found appellant aware of recording
Admissibility of oral confessions at punishment under Art. 38.22 (custodial interrogation requirement)	Oral confessions inadmissible because interrogation was custodial and recordings/written statements did not comply with article 38.22	Interview was noncustodial: restraints removed, appellant volunteered to talk, read Miranda, waived rights, then released	Statement was not product of custodial interrogation; article 38.22 inapplicable; admission proper

Key Cases Cited

Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (curative instruction can cure inadvertent extraneous-offense reference)
Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (mistrial standard: only for incurable prejudice)
Rojas v. State, 986 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (mistrial warranted when reference is calculated to inflame or is incurable)
Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Rule 404(b) and admissibility framework)
Martin v. State, 173 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Rule 403/404(b) balancing)
Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (trial court determines 404(b) relevance)
De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (defense opening can open door to extraneous-offense rebuttal)
Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (extraneous offenses admissible to rebut defensive theory)
Sanders v. State, 255 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 2008) (probative value v. unfair prejudice analysis)
Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (observing that State’s evidence is generally prejudicial)
Sloan v. State, 418 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. App. — Houston 2013) (custodial-interrogation analysis for inmates)
Thai Ngoc Nguyen v. State, 292 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (when a person is considered in custody)
Herrera v. State, 241 S.W.3d 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (factors for inmate-custody determination)