3 - Voice For The Defense Online

DARRELL WAYNE GREGG, No. 63,685, Rev'd, Judge Teague, En Banc,
2/1/84.
D'S CONFESSION WAS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS THE RESULT OF AN
ILLEGAL ARREST: D was arrested by deputies when he was found in a
trailer home where the deputies believed four persons named in arrest
warrants resided. D was not named in the warrants, nor were any of
the named persons found in the trailer home. The deputies took D to
sheriff's office where he was interrogated for two and one-half hours,
then taken before a magistrate for warnings, after which he confessed
to the aggravated robbery in question.
The Court reversed rejecting the State's attempts to uphold the admis-
sion of the confession. Under the totality of the circumstances --
the threatening presence of five, presumably armed, deputy sheriff's,
their hurried intrusion into the house and the warrantless search of
D's residence, the handcuffing of another occupant, and the lapse of
two and one-half hours before being taken to the magistrate -- the D
did not consent to his seizure.
The Court concluded that the taint of the illegal arrest was not
removed by D's consent to search his residence signed after arriving
at the sheriff 's office, by the Magistrate's warnings and D's waiver
of riqhts, nor the fact that D read a co-D's confession implicating
him before confessing. This case is controlled by Taylor v. Alabama,
457 U.S. 687 (1982).
THOMAS REVARD THIEL, NO. 63,774, Aff'd, Judge Teague, En Banc,
2/1/84.
DEFENSE OF NECESSITY AVAILABLE IN ESCAPE PROSECUTION UNDER LIMITED
CIRCUMSTANCES: D, who was convicted of felony escape, TEX. PENAL
CODE, 938.07, claimed that he escaped because he sincerely believed he
was suffering from bronchial cancer and was not receiving sufficient
treatment for the disease he believed he had attempting to raise the
defense of necessity, TEX. PENAL CODE, 99 -22.
The Court held that medical necessity is a defense available in an
escape prosecution, but the D must show:
(1) that he seriously believed he was afflicted with an ailment
which he believed required immediate medical attention;
(2) that he escaped because he believed that he was not receiving
adequate medical care;
(3) that he did not 'effectuate the escape by force or threats;
(4) that within a reasonable time after escape he sought medical
assistance; and
(5) immediately thereafter he made a bona fide attempt to
surrender.
Because D, here, did not meet this test, his conviction was affirmed.
February 19841VOICEfor the Defense SD-23