Torres v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Torres's convictions, concluding that the evidence was sufficient because his statements supplied direct evidence of his participation and the trial court could reject his contrary testimony. It also upheld admission of his three statements because the roadside questioning was noncustodial, and the later statements were voluntary, preceded by Miranda warnings, and not induced by promises of leniency. The court declined to reach the merits of Torres's double-jeopardy challenge because he failed to preserve it as to the counts on which he was retried.