causal connection between violation in Texas

2023Code Ann. § 51.17 (c). 8 Gonzales, 67 S.W.3d at 912-13 (recognizing that § 52.02(b) of the Family Code does not contain an independent exclusionary mechanism but that a statement taken in violation of § 52.02(b) could be excluded under Article 38.23(a) if there is a causal connection between the violation and the statement). 9 Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543-44 (Tex. Crim.

2008Gonzales v. State, 67 S.W.3d 910, 913 (Tex. Crim.App.2002).

2023Id.

2005See Pham v. State, 175 S.W.3d 767 (Tex.Crim.App., 2005)(des-ignated for publication) (requiring a causal connection between a violation of section 52.02(b) and the complained-of statements).

2012Urquhart v. State, 128 S.W.3d 701, 705 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, pet. ref’d); Tex. Dep’t of Pub.

2012Urquhart v. State, 128 S.W.3d 701, 705 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2004, pet. ref'd); Tex. Dep’t of Pub.

2010See Chapin v. State, 107 Tex.Crim. 477 , 296 S.W. 1095, 1099 (Tex. Cr.App.1927); Craft v. State, 107 Tex.Crim. 130 , 295 S.W. 617, 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1927); Chavez v. State, 9 S.W.3d 817, 822 (Tex.Cr.

2002It is unnecessary to address this issue, and our decision today should not be read as foreclosing consideration of this issue in a future case. [1] 871 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). [2] Id. at 750 . [3] Id. at 751 . [4] 993 S.W.2d 650 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [1] Chavez v. State, 9 S.W.3d 817, 822-823 (Tex. Crim.App.2000)(Price, J. concurring). [2] Roy v. State, 608 S.W.2d 645, 651 (Tex. Crim.App.1980). [3] The Court understands the State's position to be that the appellant's statement is admissible absent a causal connection between the violation of § 52.02(b) and the taking of the statement.

2008Gonzales v. State, 125 S.W.3d 616, 619 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (en banc), aff'd sub nom.

2007Gonzales v. State , 125 S.W.3d 616, 619 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (en banc), aff'd sub nom.

2008See Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862 , 871 n. 13 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (en banc) (“[W]hen the purpose of violating the law (the detour) is to recover the stolen property, we fail to see how there can be anything other than a causal connection between the violation of law and the evidence concerning that very stolen property.

2007See id.; see also Gonzales v. State, 67 S.W.3d 910, 912 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Roquemore, v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862, 870 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Chavez v. State, 9 S.W.3d 817, 820 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (all noting there must be a causal connection between improper police conduct and collection of evidence before evidence can be excluded under Article 38.23).

2008In Simpson v. State, 51 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2003), judgment vacated and remanded on other grounds, 74 S.W.3d 408, 408-09 (Tex. Crim.

2008In Simpson v. State , 51 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2003), judgment vacated and remanded on other grounds , 74 S.W.3d 408, 408-09 (Tex. Crim.

2004See Schafer, 95 S.W.3d at 456-57 (trial court did not err in concluding no causal connection between appellant’s failure to receive DWI warnings in writing and his decision to submit to breath test where appellant testified oral warnings given at time were “confused all together,” he did not understand them, he did not think he had any choice but to consent, but evidence showed he had blood alcohol concentration of .185); Rowland, 983 S.W.2d 58, 60 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (appellant failed to show causal connection between evidence obtained, ie., refusal to take breath t

2004See Schafer, 95 S.W.3d at 456-57 (trial court did not err in concluding no causal connection between appellant's failure to receive DWI warnings in writing and his decision to submit to breath test where appellant testified oral warnings given at time were "confused all together," he did not understand them, he did not think he had any choice but to consent, but evidence showed he had blood alcohol concentration of .185); Rowland, 983 S.W.2d 58, 60 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (appellant failed to show causal connection between evidence obtained, i.e., refusal to take breath

2004See Schafer, 95 S.W.3d at 456-57 (trial court did not err in concluding no causal connection between appellant’s failure to receive DWI warnings in writing and his decision to submit to breath test where appellant testified oral warnings given at time were “confused all together,” he did not understand them, he did not think he had any choice but to consent, but evidence showed he had blood alcohol concentration of .185); Rowland, 983 S.W.2d 58, 60 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (appellant failed to show causal connection between evidence obtained, ie., refusal to take breath t

2004See Schafer, 95 S.W.3d at 456-57 (trial court did not err in concluding no causal connection between appellant's failure to receive DWI warnings in writing and his decision to submit to breath test where appellant testified oral warnings given at time were "confused all together," he did not understand them, he did not think he had any choice but to consent, but evidence showed he had blood alcohol concentration of .185); Rowland, 983 S.W.2d 58, 60 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (appellant failed to show causal connection between evidence obtained, i.e., refusal to take breath

2004See Schafer, 95 S.W.3d at 456-57 (trial court did not err in concluding no causal connection between appellant’s failure to receive DWI warnings in writing and his decision to submit to breath test where appellant testified oral warnings given at time were “confused all together,” he did not understand them, he did not think he had any choice but to consent, but evidence showed he had blood alcohol concentration of .185); Rowland, 983 S.W.2d 58, 60 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (appellant failed to show causal connection between evidence obtained, ie., refusal to take breath t

2004See Schafer, 95 S.W.3d at 456-57 (trial court did not err in concluding no causal connection between appellant's failure to receive DWI warnings in writing and his decision to submit to breath test where appellant testified oral warnings given at time were "confused all together," he did not understand them, he did not think he had any choice but to consent, but evidence showed he had blood alcohol concentration of .185); Rowland, 983 S.W.2d 58, 60 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (appellant failed to show causal connection between evidence obtained, i.e., refusal to take breath

2007Analysis “The Vienna Convention is an international treaty that governs relations *87 between individual nations and foreign consular officials.” Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, — U.S. —, —, 126 S.Ct. 2669, 2691 , 165 L.Ed.2d 557 (2006).

2007Analysis “The Vienna Convention is an international treaty that governs relations *87 between individual nations and foreign consular officials.” Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, — U.S. —, —, 126 S.Ct. 2669, 2691 , 165 L.Ed.2d 557 (2006).

2023Code Ann. § 51.17 (c). 8 Gonzales, 67 S.W.3d at 912-13 (recognizing that § 52.02(b) of the Family Code does not contain an independent exclusionary mechanism but that a statement taken in violation of § 52.02(b) could be excluded under Article 38.23(a) if there is a causal connection between the violation and the statement). 9 Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543-44 (Tex. Crim.

2015App. 2013) (holding that the independent source doctrine is not in conflict with Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because “the independent source doctrine by definition applies only to situations in which there is no causal connection between the illegality and the obtainment of evidence”); State v. Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Tex. Crim.

2015App. 2010) (noting specifically “[t]he State does not argue, in this Court, that appellant failed to show a causal connection between the violation of the law and the making of the confession”); Wehrenberg v. State, 416 S.W.3d 458, 470 (Tex. Crim.

2010Roberts created his report precisely to give it to appellant-an outsider-to affect the course of his investigation. [48] State's Brief at 10. [49] The State does not argue, in this Court, that appellant failed to show a causal connection between the violation of law and the making of the confession or that any taint was attenuated. [1] See Jones v. State, 942 S.W.2d 1 , 2 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) ("Preservation of error is a systemic requirement that a first-level appellate court should ordinarily review on its own motion."). [1] 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). [2] It is, h

2010See Chapin v. State, 107 Tex.Crim. 477 , 296 S.W. 1095, 1099 (Tex. Cr.App.1927); Craft v. State, 107 Tex.Crim. 130 , 295 S.W. 617, 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1927); Chavez v. State, 9 S.W.3d 817, 822 (Tex.Cr.

2010See Chapin v. State, 107 Tex.Crim. 477 , 296 S.W. 1095, 1099 (Tex. Cr.App.1927); Craft v. State, 107 Tex.Crim. 130 , 295 S.W. 617, 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1927); Chavez v. State, 9 S.W.3d 817, 822 (Tex.Cr.

2010See Chapin v. State, 107 Tex.Crim. 477 , 296 S.W. 1095, 1099 (Tex. Cr.App.1927); Craft v. State, 107 Tex.Crim. 130 , 295 S.W. 617, 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1927); Chavez v. State, 9 S.W.3d 817, 822 (Tex.Cr.

2010See Chapin v. State, 107 Tex.Crim. 477 , 296 S.W. 1095, 1099 (Tex. Cr.App.1927); Craft v. State, 107 Tex.Crim. 130 , 295 S.W. 617, 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1927); Chavez v. State, 9 S.W.3d 817, 822 (Tex.Cr.

2003See Pham v. State, No. 01-99-00631-CR, 125 S.W.3d 622, 627-628 , 2003 WL 22807944 , *4-*5 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 26, 2003, no pet. h.).

2003See Pham v. State, No. 01-99-00631-CR, 125 S.W.3d 622, 627-628 , 2003 WL 22807944 , *4-*5 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 26, 2003, no pet. h.).

2002It is unnecessary to address this issue, and our decision today should not be read as foreclosing consideration of this issue in a future case. [1] 871 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). [2] Id. at 750 . [3] Id. at 751 . [4] 993 S.W.2d 650 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [1] Chavez v. State, 9 S.W.3d 817, 822-823 (Tex. Crim.App.2000)(Price, J. concurring). [2] Roy v. State, 608 S.W.2d 645, 651 (Tex. Crim.App.1980). [3] The Court understands the State's position to be that the appellant's statement is admissible absent a causal connection between the violation of § 52.02(b) and the taking of the statement.