Skip to main content

Herrera v. State

Citations

  • 241 S.W.3d 520
  • 2007 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1675
  • 2007 WL 4146707

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating that both article 38.22 and Miranda apply when persons are in custody and being interrogated
  • holding that article 38.22 applies only to statements garnered through custodial interrogation
  • holding that article 38.22 applies only to statements garnered through custodial interrogation
  • holding that article 38.22 applies only to statements garnered through custodial interrogation
  • holding that article 38.22 applies only to statements garnered through custodial interrogation
  • recognizing that article 38.22, section 2(a) warnings are “virtually identical” to warnings required by Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, except that article 38.22 also requires warning accused that he “has the right to terminate the interview at any time”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Keasler, Keller, Meyers, Womack, Hervey, Cochran, Johnson, Price, Holcomb

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

369 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

51 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Herrera v. State

93 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.