Is Reading Miranda Rights ''Separately'' on Every Offence Mandatory ?
In Flemming v. State, 949 S.W.2d 876, 879-80 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.), the court held the defendant's statements admissible even though the officer failed to reread the defendant his rights after resuming the interrogation, but reminded him that his rights had been read previously.
The court found that a magistrate had read the defendant his rights after his arrest, and the police officer had warned him again before beginning the initial interrogation. Id. at 878.
In these circumstances, the second phase of the questioning was merely a continuation of the interrogation process, and there was not such a break in the interrogation that required the giving of new warnings. See Dunn v. State, 721 S.W.2d 325, 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).
In this situation, the warnings were sufficient.
The Court of Criminal Appeals said in Dunn:
Neither our constitutional nor statutory law requires that a defendant be rewarned where there is a transition from questioning him regarding one offense to questioning him regarding another offense, nor have we found any requirement in our law that the Miranda warnings must be limited to any specific unlawful conduct, nor do we know of any reason which requires that it be so limited, considering the purpose of the Miranda rule. Dunn v. State, 721 S.W.2d at 338.