Mills v. State, 05-84-00931-CR
| Decision Date | 08 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-84-00931-CR,05-84-00931-CR |
| Citation | 696 S.W.2d 421 |
| Parties | Bobby Hale MILLS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Paul W. Leech, Dallas, for appellant.
Ruth E. Plagenhoef, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, for appellee.
Before AKIN, WHITHAM and McCLUNG, JJ.
Bobby Hale Mills was convicted of driving while intoxicated. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the jury to hear the audio portion and to view the video portion of videotaped statements made after his arrest, that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the statements contained in the videotape, and that the trial court erred in admitting the videotape into evidence because it failed to comply with Article 38.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We agree with appellant's contention that it was error for the trial court to permit the jury to hear the audio portion of the videotaped statements because the State violated appellant's constitutional right to terminate the interview. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for a new trial.
At 10:45 p.m. on February 28, 1984, appellant was seen by Dallas Police Officer Raymond Ysasaga driving his vehicle at a high rate of speed. Officer Ysasaga stopped appellant's vehicle, asked appellant to exit the vehicle and observed that appellant had difficulty walking, had bloodshot eyes, had slurred speech and had a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. Appellant was arrested for driving while intoxicated and taken to Lew Sterrett Justice Center. After his arrest, appellant was taken to the room set aside for videotaping interviews with persons suspected of being intoxicated, given his Miranda 1 warnings, and informed that a videotape recording was being made of his conversations with the officers. Although appellant told the officers that he wished to terminate the interview, the officers did not turn off the video recorder, including audio reproduction, nor did they take him to his cell. Instead, they continued to talk to appellant and videotaped and recorded their oral questions and his oral answers. In fact, Officer Prettyman testified that it was "procedure" to continue videotaping a defendant even after the defendant requested that the interview be terminated.
When a defendant avails himself of the right to remain silent, the interview must cease. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 325, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975); Hearne v. State, 534 S.W.2d 703, 707 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); see Hunt v. State, 632 S.W.2d 640, 642-643 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1982, pet.ref'd). Failure to terminate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...if you don't know the number. The issue in this case has been the subject of conflicting opinions in the Courts of Appeals. In Mills v. State, 696 S.W.2d 421 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1985, vacated and remanded, 720 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), and Knox v. State, 722 S.W.2d 793 (Tex.App.--Amarillo......
-
Kraft v. State, 01-85-0685-CR
...been suppressed. Jones v. State, 703 S.W.2d 391 (Tex.App.--Eastland 1986, no pet.); Goodnough v. State, 627 S.W.2d 841; compare Mills v. State, 696 S.W.2d 421 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1985, no Appellant's ground of error is sustained. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new t......
-
Knox v. State
...v. State, 703 S.W.2d 391 (Tex.App.--Eastland 1986); Gathright v. State, 698 S.W.2d 260 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1985, no pet.); Mills v. State, 696 S.W.2d 421 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1985, no After the Amarillo Court of Appeals handed down its opinion in the instant case, we granted review of the Ea......
-
Mills v. State
...the court assessed punishment at 365 days and a $1,000 fine. The Court of Appeals reversed appellant's conviction. Mills v. State, 696 S.W.2d 421 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1985). In the Court of Appeals, it was concluded the trial court erred in permitting the jury to hear the audio portion of video......