Angel v. State
| Decision Date | 29 January 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 23514.,23514. |
| Citation | 200 S.W.2d 169 |
| Parties | ANGEL v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tarrant County; Willis M. McGregor, Judge.
Albert Graham Angel was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Martin, Moore & Brewster, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Alfred M. Clyde, Cr. Dist. Atty., J. Elwood Winters, W. R. Parker (deceased), and W. E. Myers, Asst. Cr. Dist. Attys., all of Fort Worth, and Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was charged with the murder of Luther L. Hankins, and upon his trial therefor was assessed the penalty of death.
Appellant, a man 39 years old, lived at a rooming house or hotel belonging to the deceased known as No. 1209½ Chambers Street, in Fort Worth, Texas.
It was alleged in the indictment that appellant, on July 11, 1945, killed Mr. Hankins by strangling him with a wire wrapped around the neck, and by striking, beating and wounding him with a hammer.
On July 11, 1945, in the late afternoon, it is shown that Luther L. Hankins, who was 59 years of age and practically blind, together with appellant, entered appellant's automobile and left the rooming house for an unknown destination. This was the last time Mr. Hankins was seen alive. Appellant's father lived near the Fort Worth-Mansfield public road, where appellant was raised, and near an abandoned farm called the Mathis farm in Tarrant County. The morning after Hankins disappeared in company with appellant, he (appellant) appeared at this rooming house in possession of the keys thereto, and announced that he had purchased such place from Hankins and that "he won't be back". The following day (July 13, 1945), two days after Hankins had disappeared, appellant's father came to J. T. Beasley, a Justice of the Peace of the Mansfield Precinct, and had a conversation with Mr. Beasley, who thereafter in company with appellant's father went to a smokehouse on this abandoned Mathis farm, which was about a quarter of a mile from the farm of appellant's father, and there Mr. Beasley found the dead body of a man, afterwards identified as that of Luther L. Hankins. This body had a wire wound about the neck and evidenced a hole on the forehead over the right eye, as well as other wounds about the head. The trousers were gone from the body, and no hat was near it. The legs bore scratches as though they had been dragged on the ground.
Dr. Andujar performed an autopsy on this body. He testified to an eight-inch cut on the head, about an inch and a half in diameter; a similar wound on the left side of the head; a third wound in the hair line; the right cheek bone was bruised around the base of the neck; and a further wound a half inch in thickness. The neck wound could have been caused by the wire found thereon. The skull bone was mashed inward into the brain, and there was bleeding therefrom which evidenced that the injured person lived after the strokes on the head. The cut on the forehead, however, was not accompanied by any blood, and was evidently made after death. The lungs bore unmistakable evidence that death was caused by strangulation.
The officers began an immediate search for appellant after they had established the identity of the body by fingerprints, and about 1:30 o'clock in the morning of July 13, 1945, they took appellant into custody. They began to question him, and after an hour or so Sheriff Rhodes, who was questioning him, went home, and some of his deputies continued such questioning. About 8 o'clock of that morning the officers ceased questioning him and placed him in a holdover cell, where he was given his breakfast. However, there was no chair or table therein. After the officers had finished their breakfast, some of them returned and appellant was taken from the hold-over into the sheriff's office and again questioned. One Prater, a deputy sheriff, not engaged in this questioning, was a cousin of appellant, and at one point in this questioning Mr. Prater appeared, either at the request of appellant or the suggestion of the officers, and told appellant that he (Prater) thought it would be best to tell the truth about the matter at inquiry. About the time of making a statement in writing, appellant had told the officers that he had taken the deceased's trousers, and hat and appellant's hammer, and given them to his father to hide or burn them. About 1:30 o'clock on the 13th day of July, Mr. Parker, an Assistant District Attorney, was called to the sheriff's office and told that appellant desired to make a statement, whereupon he talked to appellant, and being informed of such fact, he gave appellant the statutory warning. He then took him to an office of the District Attorney, and procuring a stenographer, he again gave him the statutory warning, whereupon appellant made certain statements to him which he in turn dictated to the stenographer and which were transcribed by her and to which appellant appended his signature. This statement, when offered in evidence, was objected to as having been obtained in violation of the State Constitution, Article 1, § 10, Vernon's Ann.St., as well as the "due process clause" of the Federal Constitution. Const.U.S.Amend. 14. It is worthy of notice also that from what appellant had told the officers as to the location of the trousers and hat of the deceased, they found portions of the trousers where they had been partially burned, and the father of appellant took them to where he had buried the deceased's hat, and same was taken from a hole in the ground.
The facts relative to such written statement come entirely from the officers questioning appellant. They began looking for him soon after they established the identity of the deceased's body and found him about 1:30 in the morning of July 13th, and soon thereafter began to question him. This they had a right to do.
The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U. S. 596, 64 S.Ct. 1208, 1212, 88 L.Ed. 1481, declared as follows:
In the instant case, appellant did not take the witness stand, and he made no complaint relative to any mistreatment during the twelve hours of his questioning. True it is shown that he had no sleep during these twelve hours, and neither did these diligent officers who were endeavoring to find out the facts relative to this offense. The testimony relative to the conversation with the cousin, Prater, is not thought to evidence sufficient force to have caused him to make an involuntary statement, or to overcome his will to such an extent that he would lose his ability to resist a natural inclination to shield himself by not disclosing his participation in this crime.
The confession, while implicating appellant in the killing of Mr. Hankins, also contains one of his presented defenses in the following paragraph offered by appellant:
We think under the proven facts herein, it is shown that this statement was the free and voluntary act of appellant, made after a proper warning, and was admissible as such under Art. 727, C.C.P....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. State, 39160
...that are found to be true, which conduce to establish his guilt. Riddle v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 419, 201 S.W.2d 829; Angel v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 183, 200 S.W.2d 169; Gage v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 336, 263 S.W.2d Appellant's next complaint relates to the following incident which occurred du......