holding that Miranda does not apply to statements taken in foreign jurisdictions; “Because this is a question of interpretation of Miranda and whether it applies, we fail to see how the state and federal exclusionary rules would differ”
How later courts described this case
- holding that Miranda does not apply to statements taken in foreign jurisdictions; “Because this is a question of interpretation of Miranda and whether it applies, we fail to see how the state and federal exclusionary rules would differ”
- finding Mexican police were not acting as agents of U.S. law enforcement officials when they obtained a confession from defendant since they acted independently on their own behalf
- finding it significant that Texas authorities played no part in obtaining the defendant’s written confession in Mexico
- noting that an out-of-state officer does not become an agent for Texas police department merely because the department informs the out-of-state officer of the movements of a fugitive
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
The statutory exclusionary rule in Texas is quite specific:
(a) No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any case.
Art. 38.23(a), V.A.C.C.P. It contains but one exception in subsection (b): “good faith.”
While the court of appeals may well have been correct in its determination that the Mexican authorities would have taken the confession because they had an independent and concurrent reason for doing so, that fact does not change the sanction imposed by Art. 38.23(a). It is more judicious to leave to the Legislature to incorporate exceptions into the plain wording of the statute as it did with the “good faith” exception. Certainly that is true in the case sub judice as the wording of the statute is plain and unambiguous and is not subject to differing interpretations concerning exceptions.
Thus, I would hold that the court of appeals erred in engrafting the “independent, concurrent basis” exception to the statute. See Garcia v. State, 829 S.W.2d 796 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). Because the majority does not, I respectfully dissent.
OVERSTREET, J„ joins.