Vasquez v. State
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1591
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant is guilty of capital murder; since State did not seek death, the only penalty is life imprisonment.
- Appellant challenged the trial court's suppression ruling, contending the confession was obtained via an unconstitutional two-step interrogation.
- Court of Appeals agreed that the police used a two-step technique that undermined Miranda, reversing and remanding for findings.
- Supreme Court granted review and vacated the Court of Appeals judgment, remanding to Court of Appeals with instructions to remand to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Main issue is voluntariness of the statements under the Fifth Amendment; warnings are required to guarantee voluntariness.
- Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.22 requires written findings on voluntariness; there were no such findings in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of two-step interrogation under Miranda | State contends Seibert framework not violated in this case | Womack argues two-step technique undermines Miranda and is involuntary | Two-step method implicated; confessions excluded absent curative steps; remand for findings |
| Mandatory written findings under 38.22 | 38.22 findings are required in voluntariness challenges | Not applicable or waived due to lack of findings | Written findings required in all voluntariness challenges; absence error; abate for findings |
| Procedural remedy and remand | Remand appropriately to obtain necessary findings | No additional remedies argued beyond voluntariness | Remand to Court of Appeals with direction to abate to trial court for specified findings; then return |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. Supreme Court 1966) (Miranda warnings required to ensure voluntariness)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (two-step interrogation violates Miranda when no warnings before unwarned confession)
- Carter v. State, 309 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010) (curative measures may include breaks, warnings, and clarifications to preserve voluntariness)
- Martinez v. State, 272 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Cr. App. 2008) (discusses potential curative steps after unwarned statements)
- Oursboum v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Cr. App. 2008) (emphasizes burden of proof on State to show voluntariness)
- Wicker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. Cr. App. 1987) (mandatory nature of 38.22 findings; abatement directive )