NITIN KUMAR MADAS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2025)

DISSENTING OPINION

Reversed and Remanded and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed March 20, 2025

This is a narrow dissent. The facts listed by the majority are accurate, even kind, given concerns from the body cams that are not relevant to the disposition of this case. The majority's statement of the law is also accurate. I agree that Carmouche is good law. Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The majority is undeniably correct in their description of the bifurcated standard we must employ. The majority correctly notes that some relevant spots not covered in the trial court's written findings require us to defer to implicit findings which support the trial court's ruling on voluntariness.

If I was judging this motion to suppress, I might not have reached the same conclusion as to the voluntariness of appellant's consent as this trial judge did. In this case voluntariness should be gauged by more factors than saying “go ahead.” But I cannot go so far as to say that, on the implicit findings we must give deference to in this case, this trial court abused its discretion when it denied appellant's motion to suppress. I therefore respectfully dissent.

Chad Bridges Justice