holding the chemical breath test procedure “is not a ‘critical stage’ of the criminal process which necessitates either the prior consultation [with] or presence of counsel under the right-to-counsel provision of Article I, § 10 of the Texas Constitution”, (quoting Forte v. State, 759 S.W.2d 128, 139 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (en banc))
How later courts described this case
- holding the chemical breath test procedure “is not a ‘critical stage’ of the criminal process which necessitates either the prior consultation [with] or presence of counsel under the right-to-counsel provision of Article I, § 10 of the Texas Constitution”, (quoting Forte v. State, 759 S.W.2d 128, 139 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (en banc))
- holding that Supreme Court Fifth Amendment "bright line” rules regarding right to counsel for custodial interrogations applies to Texas constitutional analysis as well
- internal for a mandatory blood draw were [ ] met. Appellant quotations omitted
- purpose of Edwards to establish rule immune from vagaries that invariably accompany diverse factual encounters
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLINTON, J.,
disagreeing that “consistency” demands a “critical stage analysis” to assistance of counsel under due process and due course of law, respectfully dissents.