Vasquez v. State
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 33
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Vasquez was tried for capital murder; he filed two written motions to suppress all custodial oral statements as involuntary/unwarned and for noncompliance with Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22 (recording/warning requirements).
- At the suppression hearing Detective Bolton (who recorded the formal statement) testified ambiguously about who Mirandized and interviewed Vasquez; Vasquez testified he received Miranda warnings only after an initial confession.
- Vasquez’s counsel argued Article 38.22 noncompliance in closing, and only at the very end mentioned for the first time a “two‑step” (question‑first, warn‑later) interrogation theory; the State did not respond and the court admitted the videotaped statement but suppressed unrecorded statements.
- The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed on two‑step grounds; this Court vacated and remanded for findings; the trial court made findings, the court of appeals again reversed, and this Court granted review.
- The primary legal dispute at this review was whether Vasquez preserved his two‑step interrogation objection for appeal by giving the trial court and opposing counsel adequate notice of that legal theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vasquez preserved a two‑step interrogation objection for appeal | Vasquez: his written motions + mention of "two‑step interview" in closing preserved the claim | State: objection was untimely and insufficiently specific to notify court/opposing counsel | Court held: not preserved; comment was too delayed and imprecise to satisfy Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 |
| Whether trial court/State understood the two‑step theory at hearing | Vasquez: the record and later findings show court understood the claim | State: lack of response and failure to call Sergeant Padilla show they did not understand | Court held: trial court and State did not understand; later findings were produced on remand and could not cure preservation defect |
| Whether, if preserved, a two‑step interrogation occurred (custodial questioning pre‑warning) | Vasquez: evidence supported pre‑warning custodial interrogation by officers | State: contested below; on remand trial court found Padilla Mirandized and interviewed Vasquez before the formal statement | Court held: moot — not reached because of preservation failure |
| Remedy when two‑step tactic used deliberately | Vasquez: suppression of warned and unwarned statements required | State: (implicit) partial suppression suffices when facts uncertain | Court held: if deliberate, both unwarned and warned statements must be suppressed, but Vasquez failed to preserve the claim so remedy was not applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (two‑step/question‑first warn‑later technique undermines Miranda and may render postwarning statements inadmissible)
- Martinez v. State, 272 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (when two‑step technique is deliberate, both pre‑ and postwarning statements must be suppressed)
- Carter v. State, 309 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (adopts the deliberate‑use requirement for two‑step suppression analysis)
- Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (preservation depends on the context and parties’ shared understanding at the time of the objection)
- Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (no technical words required to preserve error; straightforward notice in plain English suffices)