Alford v. State (Original)
Annotate this CaseDefendant challenged the court of appeal's holding that the trial court properly admitted appellant's un-Mirandized custodial statements made in response to "questioning attendant to an administrative 'booking' procedure." Defendant contended that the court of appeals erred by applying an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing the trial court's ruling that the questioning did not offend Texas Code of Criminal Procedure arts. 38.22, 3(a)(2) and 38.23(a); and by affirming the trial court's admission of the statements under the "booking question exception" to Miranda because "the officer's questions -- unlike routine booking questions -- were reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses." The court concluded that the appellate court must generally review de novo whether a question came within the booking-question exception to Miranda, and that the court of appeals erred by affirming the trial court's admission of defendant's statements under that exception. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.