Page 38 - TPA Journal March April 2023

reasons stated earlier in the “Honoring the Right to he said could be used against him. At the
Silence” subsection. And even if we went back to beginning of the second interview, he insisted that
the first interview and held that Ranger Vela’s the warnings did not need to be read again because
“may or may not affect” statement rendered he understood them. Appellant’s statements
inadmissible what was said afterwards, facts (1), during the interviews suggested that he could
(2), (3), and (5) from the first interview would still think rationally. Without being told, Appellant
have been admitted, along with the first half of understood that a capital offense carried the death
fact (4) from Appellant’s arrest-scene statement, penalty.
and our conclusion that any error is harmless
would still be valid. And he was able to articulate a coherent and
exculpatory version of events in both
Appellant further claims that his recorded interviews—claiming in the first interview that he
statements were involuntary under state law due was the victim of an unprovoked attack by the
to his state of mind. He claims that he was “sleep- Vega family and claiming in the second interview
deprived, injured, ill, and intoxicated from drugs.” that he shot at the Vega family but only in
He also claims that he feared for his life and his response to them shooting first. The trial court was
family’s life prior to and during his statements. A well within its discretion to conclude that
state-law claim of involuntariness under Article Appellant was not suffering from a mental
38.22 may, but need not, be predicated on law condition that would have caused his statement, or
enforcement overreaching. A confession can be his waiver of rights, to be involuntary.
involuntary under state law if it is given “under the
duress of hallucinations, illness, medications, or As for Appellant’s claim that private threats
even a private threat.” A confession can be rendered his statement involuntary, that claim
involuntary under state law if the suspect lacked depended on Appellant’s suppression-hearing
the mental capacity to understand his rights or if, testimony and recorded-interview statements, all
due to a temporary mental condition, he did not of which the trial court was free to disbelieve.
understand what he was confessing to. But
“youth, intoxication, mental retardation, and other But even if all of Appellant’s recorded statements
disabilities are usually not enough, by themselves, were admitted in violation of statute, we
to render a statement inadmissible.” are convinced that any possible error did not
influence the jury or had but slight effect and thus
Appellant claimed both lack of sleep and that he was harmless under the standard for non-
was on drugs. As we indicated earlier, some lack constitutional errors. Even without his statements,
of sleep was inevitable given the lateness of the Appellant was connected to the abandoned red
arrest, though how much that affected Appellant SUV by bloodstains in the vehicle matching his
was something the factfinder could decide. The DNA. Three witnesses identified Appellant as one
finder of fact was free to disbelieve the drug of the two men who attacked the Vega family, two
claim. And even if the finder of fact believed that of those witnesses identified Appellant as both the
Appellant was tired and under the influence of driver and the person who shot Harvey, and an
drugs, that would not alone require a conclusion additional witness testified that Harvey was shot
that Appellant lacked the mental state needed to by the driver. Two witnesses testified that
make a voluntary confession. Appellant said that Appellant instructed the Vega family to get down
he understood his rights and agreed to waive them. on the ground. A gun that was consistent with the
He specifically noted his understanding that what bullet that killed Harvey and with shells at the

34 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal