State v. Stevenson, 2-89-031-CR

Decision Date08 February 1990
Docket NumberNo. 2-89-031-CR,2-89-031-CR
Citation784 S.W.2d 143
PartiesThe STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Edwin Earl STEVENSON, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Amy Ayers Adams, Dist. Atty., and Christopher A. Curtis, Asst. Dist. Atty., Weatherford, for appellant.

Alex Tandy, Grand Prairie, for appellee.

Before HILL, FARRIS and DAY, JJ.

OPINION

FARRIS, Judge.

The State of Texas appeals the trial court's orders suppressing evidence. Stevenson is charged with murder. At a pre-trial hearing Stevenson sought the suppression of evidence which he contended was obtained in violation of his rights under the fourth and fifth amendments to the United States Constitution because of a warrantless search of his residence and custodial interrogation without a Miranda warning. The trial court sustained Stevenson's motions by excluding evidence of statements made by Stevenson to the deputy sheriffs at the scene of the offense and evidence of a pistol found inside Stevenson's residence. We affirm the orders of the trial court because we find that Stevenson's statements were made as a result of custodial interrogation and the warrantless recovery of the revolver in Stevenson's residence was not justified by an exigent circumstance, the need to protect persons at the crime scene.

The suppressed evidence was obtained at the crime scene by Parker County Sheriff's Deputies Gundlach and Edwards. Both of the deputies came in response to a radio dispatch following a telephone call by Stevenson to the Parker County Sheriff's Office. The dispatcher advised the officers that a shooting had occurred. Gundlach arrived first pulling into the driveway immediately before an ambulance also responding to Stevenson's call. Upon arriving at Stevenson's residence, Gundlach observed two bodies lying on the ground and an elderly, pajama-clad, white male, Stevenson. Gundlach observed that Stevenson was upset and excited, complaining he could not get any help and he needed an ambulance. Gundlach asked Stevenson where the gunman was but Stevenson was evasive in his reply. Only after Gundlach explained that the ambulance crew would not treat the victims until it was safe to do so did Stevenson hesitantly reply that he had done the shooting, adding he thought the victims were burglars.

After admitting his involvement, Stevenson stated he was a heart patient and asked Gundlach that he be permitted to sit down. Gundlach allowed Stevenson to sit on the front porch. According to Gundlach he did not consider Stevenson an immediate threat because it was apparent Stevenson did not have a firearm on his person. Gundlach then moved to a position where he could observe one of the two victims, then walked toward his car to get a video camera when Deputy Edwards arrived. Gundlach testified he asked Edwards to watch the man on the porch believing that he added "he's the shooter."

Deputy Edwards testified that after a brief conversation with Gundlach he joined Stevenson on the front porch standing there for a few minutes before asking any questions. At that point Edwards testified he was uncertain of Stevenson's involvement in the shooting. Edwards asked Stevenson where the gun was and Stevenson answered it was in the bedroom, pointing in that direction. Edwards inquired where in the bedroom the gun would be located, and Stevenson replied it was under the pillow. Edwards then determined which room Stevenson was indicating and using his flashlight walked into the bedroom, over to the bed, and raised a pillow where he observed a revolver.

After discovery of the revolver Edwards left it untouched and summoned Gundlach, who made an effort to photograph the pistol as it lay on the bed. The pistol remained on the bed for a couple of hours in order that it could be videotaped in the location where it was found.

We hold Stevenson was in police custody at the time of his statements concerning the location of the gun because he was restrained in his freedom of movement to the degree associated with a formal arrest. In arriving at this determination, we have examined the factors delineated by the Court of Criminal Appeals in light of the specific facts of this case to determine whether Stevenson was in the custody of the officers, whether probable cause to arrest existed, whether Stevenson was the focus of the investigation, the subjective intent of the officers, and Stevenson's subjective belief. See Wicker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 779, 786 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 938, 108 S.Ct. 1117, 99 L.Ed.2d 278 (1988).

First, Gundlach, and moments later, Edwards, arrived at a scene which was chaotic and potentially life threatening to both the officers and the ambulance attendants. The focus of their initial investigation was not upon Stevenson but upon the victims and the potential for continued violence. However, it was immediately revealed that Stevenson was the shooter, he was unarmed, and there were no other persons in the vicinity who posed a threat to the police officers or the ambulance crew. Stevenson asked for permission to sit down on his own front porch which demonstrates his subjective belief that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • United States v. Fautz
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 15 Agosto 2011
    ... ... ) That led Agent Hatcher to request a registered firearms history on him from the New Jersey State Police, Firearms Investigative Unit. The firearms search showed that Mr. Fautz had possessed ...          State v. Stevenson, 784 S.W.2d 143, 144–45 (Tex.App.1990) (police dispatched to defendant's home on report of a ... ...
  • Russell v. State, No. 10-04-00190-CR (Tex. App. 11/15/2006), 10-04-00190-CR.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 15 Noviembre 2006
  • Price v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 5 Diciembre 2019
    ... ... See State v ... Stevenson , 784 S.W.2d 143, 145 (Tex. App.Fort Worth 1990, no pet.) (public safety exception inapplicable when no others could gain access to gun). For those ... ...
  • State v. Adkins, 2-91-207-CR
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 28 Abril 1992
    ... ... State v. Stevenson, 784 S.W.2d 143, 145 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1990, no pet.). We find that in light of the totality of the circumstances the informant's tip observed ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT