Pecina v. State (Original)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of murdering his wife. The trial judge denied defendant's motion to suppress his statements to police during custodial questioning at a hospital after a magistrate had given him his Article 15.17 rights. The trial judge rejected defendant's claim that he had invoked both his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel when he asked the magistrate for an appointed attorney but also said that he wanted to talk to the police who were standing outside the hospital room. The court granted the State's petition for discretionary review to clarify the distinction after Montejo v. Louisiana between the Fifth Amendment right to interrogation and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Because, under Montejo, defendant never invoked his Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights to counsel during custodial interrogation, the court concluded that the trial judge properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his statements made as a result of that police questioning. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and affirmed the trial court's 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.