# Harper v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · February 18, 1976 · 533 S.W.2d 776

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774836

## Case

- **Full name:** Joe Melvin HARPER, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 18, 1976
- **Citations:** 533 S.W.2d 776; 1976 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 866
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Morrison, Roberts, Onion, Odom
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part by Woodfox v. State, 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 721 (1987).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774836

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774836. Public record. Not legal advice.