Berry v. State
| Decision Date | 16 February 1910 |
| Citation | 125 S.W. 580 |
| Parties | BERRY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Taylor County; Thomas L. Blanton, Judge.
John Lee Berry was convicted of crime, and appeals. Reversed.
C. H. Fulwiler and Geo. B. Hill, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of sodomy; his punishment being assessed at five years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The state's case is made out by several witnesses, who testified they saw what they considered the act between appellant and a cow mentioned at a distance of 300 or 400 yards. Appellant was arrested by the officers, and asked a great many questions, with a view of securing a confession; they telling him that it would be better for him, and that he would get off lighter with punishment if he would confess. Appellant had been previously convicted of being drunk, and fined $10.70, and he told them he was willing to plead guilty for $10.70—that he could work it out in two weeks. Finally the officers secured a confession, whereupon appellant was placed in jail, and the district attorney notified. He went to appellant's cell in the jail, and secured from him a written confession. The district attorney says he explained to appellant the meaning of the language employed in the written confession. Appellant is an unlearned and illiterate negro, and some of the testimony shows that he is crazy to the extent that he did not know the difference between right and wrong, or the nature of the act with which he was charged. Without going into a detailed statement of the reasons why the confession was sought to be excluded as testimony, it may be stated in a general way that under the circumstances the confession was admissible. A confession under similar circumstances to those detailed in bill of exceptions here was discussed in Gallaher v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 296, 50 S. W. 388. While in that case the confession was not excluded, yet the trial court was instructed that in another trial the charge must clearly instruct the jury as to their duty in considering the same or rejecting it. Upon another trial, if it is sought to introduce this confession, the court's charge must pertinently instruct the jury under what circumstances they may or may not consider it. The court in its general charge failed to instruct the jury in regard to the circumstances under which this confession could be considered. The court gave a short charge asked by appellant in regard to the matter, but that charge did not cover all the phases of the evidence introduced for and against the admission of the confession, and did not relate to his mental capacity or competency as a witness.
There is another phase of this matter to which we call attention, and that is the insanity of appellant. This, also, was the subject of investigation in connection with the introduction of the confession. The sheriff testified on this subject that he did not think or believe appellant knew right from wrong or the nature of the act, etc., of which he was charged. It is shown that he was an illiterate negro, could not read or write, did not understand the use of the terms employed in the conversation and in the confession itself, and the district attorney testified he had to explain to him all of those terms used in the confession. For instance, it is shown, among other things, as illustrative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. State
...v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 16, 288 S.W.2d 100, and mere illiteracy has not been considered as a form of mental subnormality. Berry v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 291, 125 S.W. 580. In Vasquez, the confession was held to be admissible where the accused was shown to have been a 'mentally deficient perso......
-
Fuller v. State
...properly raised by competent evidence, the court should charge thereon, Article 46.02, Sec. 2(c)(1), Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Berry v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 291, 125 S.W. 580, and udner such circumstances reversal will follow if the court fails to respond to a timely presented written objection o......
-
Pierce v. State
...practice seems to be to permit the jury, under proper instructions, to determine whether the confession was voluntary. Berry v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 291, 125 S. W. 580; Follis v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 189, 101 S. W. 242; Jackson v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 302, 97 S. W. 312; Gallaher v. State......
-
Price v. State
...v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 16, 288 S.W.2d 100, and mere illiteracy has not been considered as a form of mental subnormality. Berry v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 291, 125 S.W. 580. In Vasquez, the confession was held to be admissible where the accused was shown to have been a 'mentally deficient perso......