Anderson v. State
| Decision Date | 19 December 1899 |
| Citation | 54 S.W. 581 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Harris county; A. C. Allen, Judge.
Catherine Anderson was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.
Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and her punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for life, and she prosecutes this appeal.
By bills Nos. 1 and 2, appellant presents the question as to the admissibility of her confessions as testified to by Sheriff Anderson; the grounds of objection being that said confessions were not freely and voluntarily made, but were induced by persuasion or promise, and by duress and coercion. There is nothing in the evidence showing that the testimony of said witness was coerced. The only testimony that bears on the question of persuasion is as follows: At her request, it seems, the sheriff took appellant from the jail to his room, she telling him that she wanted to talk with him; that when they got to his office he warned her, in accordance with the statute, that anything she might say could not be used for her, and could be used against her; that he made no promise of any kind, nor had he threatened her in any manner; that she persisted after said warning in making a statement as to how her husband got killed; and that he then said to her that it might be better for her to tell the truth about it. This question has been discussed in a number of cases in this state, and the decisions do not appear to be harmonious. See Rice v. State, 22 Tex. App. 654, 3 S. W. 791; Gentry v. State, 24 Tex. App. 80, 5 S. W. 660; Searcy v. State, 28 Tex. App. 513, 13 S. W. 782; Thomas v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 178, 32 S. W. 771. In the latter case the expression used by the officer in charge of the prisoner was very similar to the one here complained of, as being in the nature of a promise to induce a confession. The language there used was that the officer told the prisoner that it might go lighter with him if he would tell about it, and it was held in that case that the testimony was admissible. In the motion for new trial, appellant excepted to the charge of the court, which exception is as follows: "That the court erred in its charge as to this particular: `Nor will you consider it [that is, the confession] if you believe from the evidence that defendant's confession was induced by duress, threats, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dixson
... ... 218; Washington v ... State, 106 Ala. 58, 17 So. 546; Huffman v ... State, 130 Ala. 89, 30 So. 394; Hardy v. United ... States, 3 App. D. C. 35; State v. Staley, 14 ... Minn. 105 (Gil. 75); State v. Patterson, 73 Mo. 695; ... State v. Hopkirk, 84 Mo. 278; State v ... Anderson, 96 Mo. 241, 9 S.W. 636; State v ... Bradford, 156 Mo. 91, 56 S.W. 898; State v ... Armstrong, 167 Mo. 257, 66 S.W. 961; State v ... Meekins, 41 La. Ann. 543, 6 So. 822; State v ... Williams, 129 La. 215, 55 So. 769, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 302; ... Heldt v. State, 20 Neb. 496, 30 N.W ... ...
-
Parker v. State
...W. 328, 5 Am. St. Rep. 905; Cannada v. State, 29 Tex. App. 537, 16 S. W. 341; Thomas v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 178, 32 S. W. 771; Anderson v. State, 54 S. W. 581; Brown v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 139, 75 S. W. 33, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 820, note; 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 210, note; Zwicker v. State, ......
-
Goss v. State
...App. 537, 16 S. W. 341; Thomas v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 178, 32 S. W. 771; Carlisle v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 108, 38 S. W. 991; Anderson v. State, 54 S. W. 581; Williams v. State, 65 S. W. 1059; Brown v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 139, 75 S. W. Under this rule the evidence was not to be excluded......
-
Hanus v. State
...16 S. W. 341; Thomas v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 178, 32 S. W. 771; Carlisle v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 108, 38 S. W. 991; Anderson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 54 S. W. 581; Williams v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 65 S. W. 1059; Brown v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 139, 75 S. W. The case of Rice v. State, supr......