¶1OPINION
¶2Appellee was charged with capital murder, for the death of her 18 month old daughter. After making statements to the police, appel-lee claimed, on a pre-trial motion, that the statements she made were obtained in violation of her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. As a result, she argued that they should be suppressed. The trial court granted appellee’s motion, and the State appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. State v. Consaul, 960 S.W.2d 680 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, pet. granted).
¶3The State appealed, and we granted petitions for discretionary review filed by both the State Prosecuting Attorney and the District Attorney. However, after careful review of the appellate reeoi’d, the Court of Appeals’ opinion and the briefs and oral arguments before this Court, we conclude that our decision to grant review was improvident. See Tex.R.App. P. 69.3. Accordingly, the State’s petitions are dismissed. Just as in any case where this Court refuses to grant a petition for discretionary review, our decision to dismiss the State’s petitions as improvidently granted should not be construed as approval, of the Court of Appeals’ opinion. Hensarling v. State, 829 S.W.2d 168, 169*900(Tex.Crim.App.1992); Walker v. State, 811 S.W.2d 181, 131 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).