Mills v. State
| Decision Date | 08 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 1006-85,1006-85 |
| Citation | 720 S.W.2d 525 |
| Parties | Bobby Hale MILLS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Paul W. Leech, Grand Prairie, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and Ruth E. Plagenhoef, Karen Becak and David Crowe, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appeal is taken from a conviction for the offense of driving while intoxicated. After the jury found appellant guilty, 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 videotaped statements made by appellant following his arrest. During the course of the videotaping procedure, appellant told the officers that he wished to terminate the interview. The officers did not turn off the video recorder. The Court of Appeals agreed with appellant's assertion that continued taping violated his constitutional right to remain silent. Finally, the Court of Appeals held that, when a defendant asks to terminate the interview or indicates his desire to speak to an attorney, the videotaped interview must cease.
In its petition for discretionary review, the State maintains that the statements made to appellant during the course of the videotaping procedure did not constitute custodial interrogation. The State therefore urges that continued discussions with appellant concerning the advisability of taking the breathalyzer test after appellant had sought to terminate the interview did not violate appellant's right against self-incrimination.
In deciding this case, the Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of this Court's recent opinions in McCambridge v. State, 712 S.W.2d 499 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), and Forte v. State, 707 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Cr App.1986). In McCambridge v. State, supra, this Court noted that questioning normally attendant to arrest and custody is not interrogation. Thus, it was concluded that the breath testing decision in McCambridge did not involve custodial interrogation or the privilege against self-incrimination. In Forte v. State, supra, it was held that a DWI arrestee has no Sixth Amendment right to counsel prior to a complaint and information being filed.
Pursuant to the authority conferred on this Court by Tex.R.App.Pro. Rule 202(k), the State's petition for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garner v. State, 2-87-079-CR
...710 S.W.2d 807, 808 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1986), dism'd, 768 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); see also Mills v. State, 720 S.W.2d 525, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (en banc) (per curiam); McCambridge, 712 S.W.2d at 504. Appellant's point of error four is The trial court's judgment is reversed and......
-
Miffleton v. State
...Constitution attaches before videotaping of a DWI suspect has not been decided by the Court of Criminal Appeals, see Mills v. State, 720 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Cr.App., 1986) (not yet reported) (remanding the state constitutional question), this issue has been addressed by several of the courts of......
-
Jones v. State
...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 1987), the Courts of Appeals held that compelled sobriety testing was custod......
-
Ex parte Anderer
... ... No. 0330-00 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc ... November 14, 2001 ... ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HARRIS COUNTY ... Matt Hennessy, Houston, for Appellant ... ...