Coffey v. State

In Coffey v. State, 435 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2014, pet. ref'd), the court concluded the warnings given to the defendant did not comply with Miranda and Tex. Code Crim. Proc article 38.22 because the right to counsel warning failed to inform Coffey of the "'right to have a lawyer present to advise him prior to and during any questioning.'" Id. (quoting article 38.22 and concluding that a warning omitting the right to the assistance of counsel prior to and during any questioning was ineffective). But the constitutional requirement pertaining to Miranda warnings relates to the substance of the warnings rather than the specific wording. Id. at 841 (explaining that as long as the substance of the warnings are adequately communicated, "'the failure to give the warnings precisely as set forth in Miranda does not invalidate a subsequent confession'" (quoting Hutchison v. State, 424 S.W.3d 164, 175 n.7 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2014, no pet.))).