Opinion
No. 13-07-332-CR
Opinion delivered and filed November 6, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2b.
On appeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
Before Justices RODRIGUEZ, GARZA, and VELA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The State appeals the trial court's order granting Luis Aguilar's motion to suppress his video-taped statements. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) (Vernon Supp. 2008). By one issue, the State asserts the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress. We reverse and remand.
The State may appeal an order that "grants a motion to suppress evidence, a confession, or an admission, if jeopardy has not attached in the case and if the prosecuting attorney certifies to the trial court that the appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence, confession, or admission is of substantial importance in the case[.]" Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) (Vernon Supp. 2008).
I. Background
On the morning of November 5, 2006, Jose Mosqueda was stabbed to death on Mohawk Street in Corpus Christi. About twelve hours later, the suspect in the slaying, Luis Aguilar, was arrested and taken to an interview room at the Corpus Christi Police Department. The interview room was equipped with a video camera that recorded the events in the interview room. Detective R. L. Garcia gave Aguilar a document entitled "ADVISO DE MIRANDA," which contained the Miranda warnings in Spanish. Aguilar read each warning out loud, told Detective Garcia he understood them, and put his initials by each warning. Following these warnings, the document states: "Entiende sus derechos? Si __ No __," which means, "Do you understand your rights? Yes__ No__." Aguilar circled the Spanish word, "Si," and he put his initials in the blank following "Si." After Aguilar and Detective Garcia signed the document, Aguilar told him about the stabbing incident. Afterwards, Aguilar agreed to take Detective Garcia to where he had hidden the knife. At this point, the videotape ends. It restarts when Aguilar and Detective Garcia return to the interview room. Detective Garcia showed Aguilar the knife, and Aguilar identified it as the knife he used to stab Mosqueda. Aguilar was indicted for Mosqueda's murder by stabbing him with a knife. On February 27, 2007, defense counsel filed a motion to suppress evidence, asserting that Aguilar was given his Miranda warnings as required by law; however, he never made a knowing, intelligent, or voluntary waiver of his rights as required by article 38.22, section 3 of the code of criminal procedure. Aguilar claims that his videotaped statements were therefore involuntarily made and any evidence obtained as a result thereof is inadmissible. Specifically, Aguilar claims that the knife allegedly used in this case, its location, and the fact that Aguilar took the police to the knife are inadmissible because the evidence was obtained in violation of articles 38.22 and 38.23 of the code of criminal procedure, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the Texas Constitution. On April 27 and 30, 2007, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress. Before the court heard any evidence, the State's attorney and defense counsel agreed to narrow the issue to whether Aguilar knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily waived his rights as required under article 38.22 of the code of criminal procedure.II. Standard of Review
"The job of an appellate court in cases" of motions to suppress evidence "is to review the decision of the lower court for an abuse of discretion." State v. Dixon, 206 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (op. on orig. submission). "We view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court's conclusion and reverse the judgment only if it is outside the zone of reasonable disagreement." Id.; Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 328 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); see De La Rosa v. State, 658 S.W.2d 162, 167 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983); Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (op. on reh'g). "We will sustain the lower court's ruling if it is reasonably supported by the record and is correct on any theory of law applicable to the case." Dixon, 206 S.W.3d at 590 ; Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). "We give almost total deference to a trial court's express or implied determination of historical facts and review de novo the court's application of the law . . . to those facts." Dixon, 206 S.W.3d at 590 (citing State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000)); accord Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 88 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). "[G]reat deference is accorded to the trial court's decision to admit or exclude such evidence, which will be overturned on appeal only where a flagrant abuse of discretion is shown." Delao v. State, 235 S.W.3d 235, 238 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). "[T]he trial court is the `sole and exclusive trier of fact and judge of the credibility of the witnesses' and the evidence presented at a hearing on a motion to suppress, particularly when the motion is based on the voluntariness of a confession." Id. (footnote omitted). The determination of whether a statement is voluntary is a mixed question of law and fact; that is, an application of law to a fact question. Garcia v. State, 15 S.W.3d 533, 535 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). We review de novo those questions not turning on credibility and demeanor. Id. In evaluating the voluntariness of confessions, a trial court is required to examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding them. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 285-86 (1991); Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 (1986); Delao, 235 S.W.3d at 241; Creager v. State, 952 S.W.2d 852, 856 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997).III. Suppression Hearing
A. Luis Aguilar's Testimony
Aguilar, a twenty-eight-year-old El Salvadoran native, testified he can read and write Spanish, but he cannot read or write English. He has lived continuously in the United States since September 18, 2005. Defense counsel showed Aguilar the document containing the Miranda warnings, which was admitted into evidence as defendant's exhibit 1. When counsel asked Aguilar to read the document's first paragraph, Aguilar responded, "You have the right to remain silent. You don't have to give any statement. Anything you say can be used against you, as evidence against you in court." He testified that he told Detective Garcia he understood this right. When counsel asked Aguilar what the first paragraph meant, he replied:A. That I don't have to talk in court. I have to remain silent.
Q. That you have to remain silent?
A. Yes.
Q. Or does it say that you may remain silent?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did that signify or mean to you?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know what that meant when it said, in a court?
A. No.
Q. Why did you tell the officer that you understood what you had read?
A. I didn't know.
Q. You didn't know what?
A. I didn't know what was going on.When counsel asked Aguilar to read the document's second paragraph, he responded, "You have the right to hire an attorney." He testified that he understood what this meant. When counsel asked him what it meant, he replied, "It means that I had the right to ask for an attorney if I didn't have the money to get one." When counsel asked Aguilar to read the third paragraph, he replied, "If you don't have the means to hire an attorney, you have the right for the Court to find you one without any payment so that he can represent you before and during any interview." When counsel asked Aguilar, "What did you understand it to mean?", he said, "I don't know." However, Aguilar testified he was familiar with the concept of what it means to hire a lawyer, but he denied knowing how to get a court to assign a lawyer to him. When counsel asked Aguilar to read the next paragraph, he replied, "If you permit for any official — any peace officer or attorney from the State to ask you questions without an attorney being present, you still have the right to stop the answers and stop — deny answering, and put an end to the questions." He testified that he did not know what this meant. When counsel asked him, "What do you think it means?", he replied, "I don't know." At that point, counsel asked him:
Q. When it says here that if you permit any official of the peace — what does that mean to you, official of the peace?
A. A police officer.
Q. And where it says, or attorney of the State, what is that to you?
A. Like an attorney like you.
Q. Do you think I'm an attorney for the State?
A. No, I don't know.
Q. But the paper says, or an attorney of the State, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. [W]hat does that mean to you, those words?
A. I don't know.
Q. When it says here that you have the right to stop the questioning, do you know what that means?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what questions it's referring to?
A. Yes.
At this juncture, counsel told the court he thought the interpretation "was a little bit off" and repeated the question:
Q. When you read that, do you know what questions that paragraph was referring to?
A. Maybe.
Q. You're not sure?
A. No.
Q. What do you think it means?
A. Well, maybe I think what it meant, that if the police officer caught me, that I didn't have to answer.
Q. So you understood that back then?
A. Yes.When counsel asked Aguilar to read the last paragraph, he replied, "You have the right to have an examining trial." He testified that he did not know what that meant. Counsel then told him:
Q. Continue reading.
A. A hearing before a judge.
Q. Do you know what that is? What does that mean to you?
A. I think that is what we are doing right now.
Q. Continue.
A. To determine if the State has enough evidence.
Q. Do you understand what that means?
A. Yes.
Q. Continue.
A. To detain you and continue according to the law, or to be set free according — or to be set free without any charge.
Q. Do you understand what that meant?
A. Yes.Aguilar stated that when he initialed and signed the document, no one asked him if he wanted to give up any rights that he had. When counsel asked him, "Did you know at that time that if you signed that document, it might mean that you were giving up whatever rights you had under the law here in the United States?", he replied, "No, I didn't know." Aguilar answered "No" when counsel asked, "So did you feel that you had to answer the questions?" Aguilar testified he answered the questions because he wanted to. However, he said that at the time he talked to Detective Garcia, he did not understand what the document said. Counsel further questioned Aguilar as follows:
Q. What do you think would have happened if you told him [Detective Garcia], no, I don't want to put my initials there?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did that thought cross your mind when he told you to put your initials there?
A. Yes.
Q. What were you thinking at that point?
A. He just told me to read it and for me to put my initials on the little line.
Q. But didn't he also ask you if you understood as you were putting your initials on there?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you indicate to him that you understood?
A. Yes.
Q. But now you are telling us that you didn't really understand?
A. Yes, I just read it and I put my initials.On cross-examination, Aguilar testified that he is able to read and write Spanish, understand what he reads in Spanish, and express himself in Spanish. He testified that he was able to read defendant's exhibit 1 and that he placed his initials by each warning, circled "Si" where the document asked if he understood his rights, and wrote his initials on the line following the word "Si." When the State's attorney asked him, "And so by that, you were saying you understood these rights, correct?", he replied, "Yes." The State's attorney questioned him as follows:
Q. And you did understand what you read, didn't you?
* * *
A. No.
Q. Then why did you say that you did understand?
A. I don't know.
Q. Are you saying that you understood the words but you didn't really understand what it meant?
A. Yes.
Q. But you definitely told Detective Garcia that you did understand these rights, correct?
A. Yes, that I understood the paper, but I didn't know what I was doing.He testified that he told Detective Garcia he did know what he was doing, that he was willing to talk to him, that nobody told him what to say, and that Detective Garcia did not force him to talk. The State's attorney continued:
Q. Mr. Aguilar, if Detective Garcia did not force you to give him a statement, would you agree with me that you gave that statement voluntarily?
A. Yes.
Q. And you gave that statement voluntarily after reading [defendant's exhibit 1]?
A. Yes.
Q. And after telling Detective Garcia that you understood everything in [defendant's exhibit 1]?
A. Yes.
Q. And in [defendant's exhibit 1] you told Detective Garcia that you understood what your rights were, correct?
A. Yes.
* * *
Q. What I'm asking you is, once you started telling Detective Garcia about what had happened earlier that morning between you and Jose Mosqueda, at any point in your own mind did you want to stop?
A. No.
Q. Did you want to tell Detective Garcia what had happened?
A. Yes.Aguilar testified he voluntarily told Detective Garcia he had hidden the knife and voluntarily took him to the knife's location. At no time did he tell Detective Garcia he wanted to talk to a lawyer. The State's attorney continued questioning him as follows:
Q. Mr. Aguilar, after reading this document, defendant's exhibit 1, you understood what it said, correct?
A. No, I didn't understand — I understand what it was saying, but not what it contained.
Q. You understand the words?
A. Yes, I did understand the words; but I didn't understand what it contained.
Q. Well, we talked earlier about the fact that you're able to read very well in Spanish.
A. Yes.
Q. So then can you explain how it was that you were able to read the words and not understand what they meant?
A. Well, what had happened, I didn't know that it was — what happened in the morning that day, I didn't think the same way I'm thinking right now.
Q. You mean, you weren't thinking clearly —
A. No.
Q. — because of what had happened earlier in the day?
A. Yes.
Q. But normally you would be able to understand what it meant, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. If you were thinking more clearly, correct?
A. Yes.Aguilar testified that he wanted to tell Detective Garcia what he had done and that he wanted to confess to him.