X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Authorities arrested Hugo Alejandro Sierra on suspicion of his involvement in an aggravated robbery and murder at a clothing store. Authorities took him to the police station for questioning, and after receiving Miranda warnings, Sierra gave a written confession of his involvement in the crime. Although the police knew that Sierra was a Mexican national, no one contacted the Mexican consulate, and no one informed Sierra of his right under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention to contact the consulate. Sierra filed a motion to suppress the confession, arguing that police had violated his Vienna Convention rights by not informing him of his right to contact the Mexican consulate. The trial court denied Sierra’s motion to suppress, and the state introduced the confession at trial. A jury convicted Sierra of capital murder. The state waived the death penalty and the trial court sentenced Sierra to an automatic life sentence. On direct appeal, the 2nd Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Sierra filed a petition for discretionary review. The Court of Criminal Appeals ordered the parties to brief the following specific issues: 1. Does the Vienna Convention create a privately enforceable right in a criminal proceeding?; 2. If so, does that right include the legal remedy of exclusion of a voluntary confession taken without notifying the arrestee of his right to contact his consulate?; 3. Must a defendant show a causal connection between the violation of the Vienna Convention and the making of a confession?; and 4. What is the appropriate harmless error analysis that should be applied to Vienna Convention violations? HOLDING:Affirmed. In 2006′s Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a foreign national was not entitled to similar relief because “neither the Vienna Convention nor [Supreme Court] precedents applying the exclusionary rule supported suppression of Sanchez-Llamas’ statements to the police.” But Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 38.23(a) states that no evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the constitution or laws of the state or 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 criminal case. In 2000′s Rocha v. State, the CCA performed a statutory analysis to determine whether a treaty is a “law” under Article 38.23. At the conclusion of the extensive analysis, the CCA held that treaties did not constitute laws for Art. 38.23 purposes. Sierra, the court stated, admitted that Rocha governed his case but requested that the CCA reconsider its decision. The CCA declined to do so and held that suppression is not an appropriate remedy for violations of the Vienna Convention. OPINION:Meyers, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Keller, P.J., and Price, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb and Cochran, J.J., joined. CONCURRENCE:Womack and Johnson, J.J., concurred without a written opinion.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.