State v. Negrete
| Decision Date | 04 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 01-19-00357-CR,01-19-00357-CR |
| Parties | The STATE of Texas, Appellant v. Juan NEGRETE, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Kim Ogg, District Attorney, Harris County, Texas, Zachary Gibson, Assistant District Attorney, 500 Jefferson St., Ste. 600, Houston, Texas 77002, for Appellant.
Tristan LeGrande, 1021 Main St., Ste. 1275, Houston, Texas 77008, for Appellee.
Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Landau, and Countiss.
Julie Countiss, Justice In this interlocutory appeal,1 appellant, the State, challenges the trial court's order granting the pretrial motion to suppress filed by appellee, Juan Negrete. In its sole issue, the State contends that the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion to suppress the videotape recording of appellee's oral statement to law enforcement officers.
We affirm.
A Harris County grand jury issued a true bill of indictment, alleging that appellee, on or about September 17, 2016, "did then and there unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly commit the felony offense of deadly conduct by knowingly discharging a firearm at and in the direction of a vehicle, namely a motor vehicle, and [appellee] was reckless as to whether the vehicle was occupied, and while in the course of and furtherance of said offense did commit an act clearly dangerous to human life, to-wit: by shooting with a firearm and did thereby cause the death of Jaime Rivera," the complainant.2 (Emphasis omitted.)
Later, appellee moved to suppress his statement made to law enforcement officers after he was arrested on September 20, 2016 for the felony offense of murder. According to appellee, during his interview with law enforcement officers, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel and requested counsel, but officers did not cease their interrogation in violation of appellee's Fifth Amendment right.3 Appellee also asserted that, during his interview, law enforcement officers threatened his family members, rendering his confession involuntary. Appellee requested that the trial court suppress the videotaped recording of his oral statement to law enforcement officers.
No witnesses testified at the hearing on appellee's motion to suppress. The trial court, however, viewed the videotaped recording of appellee's statement to law enforcement officers.4
The videotaped recording shows appellee handcuffed to a chair when two law enforcement officers enter the room. Appellee remains handcuffed while officers ask him questions. The handcuffs are removed about four minutes and fifty seconds into the videotaped recording. About seven minutes and thirty seconds into the videotaped recording, one of the law enforcement officers reads appellee the required Miranda5 and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.22 warnings.6 The officer then tells appellee that the officers want to talk to him about "a homicide," and he immediately states that he and the other law enforcement officer "don't want [appellee's] ... younger brother" "to be wrapped up in this" and "mixed up in this, if he is not involved." Appellee responds, "He's not." The officer tells appellee that he has information that appellee and "Ivan" were in the car, but the officers need details on "who was involved," "who was driving," "the facts," and "what happened." He says to appellee, "[O]bviously we got to your house." And the officer tells appellee he has a "big problem" because he does not "want to put [appellee's] mother and father in jail if [he] doesn't have to." When appellee asks "why" his parents would be put "in jail," the officer replies that there were "assault rifles ... in [a] bedroom that ... [were] completely and totally accessible by a ... child." Appellee tells the officer that his parents did not know that "they were there."
The law enforcement officer then asks appellee to "explain to [the officers], ... within th[e] last week when [appellee] and Ivan were together, what happened." Appellee responds, "[H]ow many people are y'all putting in the car?" The officer states, "I want you to tell me." And appellee replies, "I don't want to snitch without a lawyer."7 In response to appellee's statement, the law enforcement officer says: "[W]e are not talking about snitching, what we are talking about is keeping your mother and father from going to jail." When appellee asks, "[F]or what though," the officer states, "for the dope," "for the rifles," while the other law enforcement officer interjects "for the narcotics paraphernalia," "for the almost $14,000 of illegal money that was up there," and "for a lot of things." Appellee replies, "They don't even know" and "They don't even go up there." The officer tells appellee, "We know you smoke up there." When appellee says that his mother is "not a criminal," she just "gets nervous," the other officer tells appellee "she's gonna get a lot more nervous."
The law enforcement officer then redirects the discussion "to get to the bottom of this so that [the officers] can clear up a lot of stuff." The officer tells appellee to explain "what happened, what took place." Appellee asks, Appellee expresses reluctance to talk about the people in the car because they know that he was there. The law enforcement officer tells appellee to tell him what appellee "know[s]." Appellee states that he was "driving under the influence" and he was coming from "the club." In response to the law enforcement officer's questions, appellee explains that "Ivan" was sitting in the front-passenger seat of the sport utility vehicle ("SUV"). Appellee again expresses concern about "the other people" and asks about "witness protection." The law enforcement officer explains that he obtained a search warrant for appellee's SUV and house and the officers knew that appellee was "involved" and that "Ivan was involved." The officer reiterates that appellee was driving and "Ivan" was the passenger in the front seat of the SUV. And appellee tells the officer that there were "three more people." The officer asks what time appellee and "Ivan" left the club, and appellee responds, "When it closed." The officer asks appellee where he drove after leaving the club, and appellee states that he went "back to the neighborhood" and picked up "three people" they "saw ... in the street." The officer asks appellee what they did next, and appellee says that they "went to pick somebody else up." When asked who was picked up, appellee states that he did not know the person, but he was a relative of one of the people in the car. The officers then ask appellee, what happened next, and appellee states, "What about my lawyer right there"8 and 9 The officers respond that appellee has been corroborating what they already know, and the other officer states that appellee has not told them "who pulled the trigger" and the "circumstances behind why the trigger was pulled."
The first law enforcement officer then asks appellee about the firearm involved and to whom the firearm belonged. Appellee replies that it belonged to one of the "other boys" and they said that they had stolen it. The officer asks appellee whether "Ivan" was "the one who used the gun." And appellee responds, "Yup." The law enforcement officer reiterates that the officers "do not want to take [appellee's] mother and father to jail" or "take [appellee's] little brother to jail," but the officers "have to have information from [appellee]" and "unfortunately, [appellee's little brother is] wrapped up in it." The law enforcement officers question appellee about "[the] homicide" for another thirty-eight minutes. The videotaped recording shows that the law enforcement officers' interview with appellee lasted about sixty-one minutes.
After reviewing the videotaped recording, the trial court listed the "three statements [by appellee that it] found invoke[ed] [the right to] counsel." The first statement by appellee, which occurs about thirteen minutes and ten seconds into the videotape recording, was: "I don't want to snitch without a lawyer." (Internal quotations omitted.) The second statement by appellee, which occurs about nineteen minutes into the videotaped recording, was: "What about my lawyer right there." (Internal quotations omitted.) The third statement by appellee, which occurs about twenty minutes and forty seconds into the videotaped recording, was:
Following the suppression hearing, the trial court, without specifying the grounds, granted appellee's motion to suppress the videotape recording of appellee's oral statement to law enforcement officers.
In its sole issue, the State argues that the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion to suppress the videotape recording of appellee's oral statement to law enforcement officers because appellee did not unequivocally and unambiguously invoke his right to counsel while being interviewed by the law enforcement officers.
We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence under a bifurcated standard of review. See Turrubiate v. State , 399 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). We review the trial court's factual findings for an abuse of discretion and the trial court's application of the law to the facts de novo. Id. At a suppression hearing, the trial court is the sole and exclusive trier of fact and judge of the witnesses' credibility, and it may choose to believe or disbelieve all or any part of the witnesses' testimony. Maxwell v. State , 73 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ; State v. Ross , 32 S.W.3d 853, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). When, as here, a trial court does not make explicit findings of fact, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, and we assume that the trial court made implied findings of...
To continue reading
Request your trial