driver stopped for making a sudden turn while approaching a license check point; registration records did not match the make of car being driven; driver was asked to whom the car belonged
How later courts described this case
- driver stopped for making a sudden turn while approaching a license check point; registration records did not match the make of car being driven; driver was asked to whom the car belonged
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part by Woodfox v. State, 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 721 (1987)
Given the importance of the rights protected by the Fifth Amendment and Article I, section 10 and the lack of any compelling reason for the continued vitality of the Williams and Harper exception, we find it preferable to overrule them in so far as they conflict with today’s holding.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached in this case, but disagree with the majority’s assessment of appellant’s first two grounds of error. *778 They conclude that appellant’s remarks about the ownership of the car he was driving was a confession erroneously admitted in violation of Art. 38.22, V.A.C.C.P., and the Constitution of the United States, but nevertheless rendered harmless by the other “overwhelming” evidence in the case.
Appellant’s statement that the car belonged to his sister was in no way inculpato-ry and did not constitute a confession under our statutes, in my opinion. Butler v. State, 493 S.W.2d 190 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) (dissenting opinion); Easley v. State, 493 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Martinez v. State, 498 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) (concurring opinion). It was not the product of oppressive or accusatory police interrogation. I agree with Commissioner Archie Brown, whose original draft of this opinion read as follows:
“Although the appellant was not free to leave he was not under arrest and the investigation had not yet centered on the appellant in any respect save his failure to have a driver’s license in his possession. Under these circumstances the inquiry of the officer as to who the car belonged to after the appellant failed to produce a driver’s license did not involve a custodial interrogation. See Generally Annotation Police Interrogation — Traffic Offenses, 25 A.L.R.3rd 1076. We further note that the appellant’s answer that the car belonged to his sister can hardly be characterized as a confession or even an inculpa-tory statement in the context in which it was given.
“Appellant contends that even if his statement was admissible under Miranda it was none the less error to admit it under Art. 38.22, V.A.C.C.P.
“The statement that the car belonged to the appellant’s sister was not a confession nor did it lead to any evidence that tended to reflect on the appellant’s guilt. The statement was a simple exculpatory statement and Art. 38.22, V.A.C.C.P., was not applicable.”
I therefore concur in the affirmance of this conviction.
ODOM, J., joins in this opinion.