Caballero v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Lee v. State

    No. 05-16-00709-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 26, 2017)

    General, routine questions, such as what appellant was doing in the house, are not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response and do not constitute interrogation. See Caballero v. State, No. 05-11-00367-CR, 2012 WL 6035259, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 5, 2012, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). In this case, after receiving a report about a suspected intruder, the officers found appellant pretending to be asleep in a house that appeared to have been ransacked.

  2. Dominy-Gatz v. State

    No. 05-15-01194-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 16, 2016)   Cited 5 times

    Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 8 (1964); Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410, 418 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). See also Caballero v. State, No. 05-11-00367-CR, 2012 WL 6035259, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 5, 2012, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication) (person held for investigative detention is not in "custody"). The determination of whether a person is in custody is made on an ad hoc basis considering all the objective circumstances.

  3. Bates v. State

    494 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. App. 2015)   Cited 9 times
    Holding admission of dash cam video violated Confrontation Clause when defendant was present at scene but "quickly acquiesced to law enforcement's authority."

    Ramirez v. State, 105 S.W.3d 730, 738–39 (Tex.App.—Austin 2003, no pet.) ; Loris v. State, Nos. 02–11–00464–CR, 02–11–00465–CR, 02–11–00466–CR, 2013 WL 3968079, at *3 n. 4 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth Aug. 1, 2013, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Caballero v. State, No. 05–11–00367–CR, 2012 WL 6035259, at *4 (Tex.App.—Dallas Dec. 5, 2012, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication)