Main Menu
Bookmark Page
My AccountChapter 3
- 3.1 Jury Submission of Issues Relating to Out-of-Court Statements
- 3.2 The Corpus Delicti Rule
- 3.3 When Submission Is Required under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.22, Section 6
- 3.4 Content of Instruction Regarding Voluntariness
- 3.5 Instruction—Texas Law Voluntariness
- 3.6 Instruction—Texas Law Voluntariness—Fruits of Contested Statement at Issue
- 3.7 When Submission Is Required under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.22, Section 7
- 3.8 Content of Instruction Regarding Warnings and Waivers
- 3.9 Instruction—Possible State Law Right to Counsel During Custodial Interrogation
- 3.10 When Submission of Written Statements Is Required
- 3.11 Warning by Magistrate
- 3.12 Instruction—Written Statement with Warning by Person to Whom Statement Was Made
- 3.13 Instruction—Written Statement with Warning by Magistrate
- 3.14 When Submission of Oral Statements Is Required
- 3.15 Content of Instruction Regarding Oral Recorded Statements
- 3.16 Instruction—Warnings and Waiver Required for Recorded Oral Statement
- 3.17 When Submission of a Claim of Federal Due-Process Involuntariness Is Required
- 3.18 Contents of Instruction Regarding Federal Due-Process Voluntariness
- 3.19 Instruction—Normal Due-Process Voluntariness
- 3.20 Claims of Due-Process Voluntariness Addressing Overbearing of the Will
- 3.21 Instruction—Due-Process Overbearing of the Will Voluntariness
Comment
Evidence before the jury may raise an issue as to whether a statement is voluntary as required by Texas law, embodied in article 38.21 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and perhaps also in Texas constitutional law. Jury submission of such an issue is directed and governed by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22, § 6.
A claim that a statement is involuntary under Texas law does not have to be based on a contention that the involuntariness was due to law enforcement overreaching, although, of course, it may. It may also involve “ ‘sweeping inquiries into the state of mind of a criminal defendant who has confessed’ . . . that are not of themselves relevant to [federal] due process claims.” Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159, 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986)).
Jury submission is not limited to situations in which the evidence before the jury raises a contested issue of historical fact. Rather, if the defense identifies evidence before the jury from which a reasonable jury could find the statement was not voluntarily made, submission is required. Vasquez v. State, 225 S.W.3d 541, 544–45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).