Campbell v. State
| Decision Date | 16 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 34338,34338 |
| Citation | 172 Tex.Crim. 431,358 S.W.2d 376 |
| Parties | Tremlin C. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Brown & Brown, by David H. Brown, Sherman, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Notice of appeal has been perfected in this cause. Therefore, our prior opinion is withdrawn and the appeal is reinstated.
The offense is incest; the punishment, five years.
Elizabeth Campbell Turner, the prosecuting witness, testified that she was eighteen years of age and the daughter of appellant; that she is now married but that on April 12, 1961 she was unmarried and lived with her father, mother, four sisters, and two brothers in Sherman, Texas; that on such date her mother was confined in the hospital; that on the night in question, while her brothers and sisters were asleep in the house and she was in the kitchen, appellant came in and 'took me by the arm and we went to his bedroom. * * * there we went to bed'; that appellant placed his private parts in her private parts. The prosecutrix stated that she never consented to this act of intercourse and that she feared appellant.
Johnny Burleson, a detective with the Sherman police department, testified that on May 6, 1961, he executed a warrant of arrest against appellant and took him to the city police station, where he questioned appellant about one hour; that appellant was then removed to the county jail; that on May 8, 1961, around 1:00 o'clock, p. m., he again questioned appellant for some thirty minutes, at which time appellant made and signed a statement, after statutory warning, admitting the alleged act.
Appellant did not testify in his own behalf.
There are no formal bills of exception nor objections to the court's charge appearing in the record.
Several points of error are raised by informal bills of exception.
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutrix to testify after she claimed her privilege against self-incrimination.
An examination of the record reflects that, on first being called as a witness, the prosecutrix refused to testify and claimed her privilege. The trial court, in the absence of the jury, inquired into the matter and upon prosecutrix's continued refusal to testify, held her in contempt. After spending the night in jail, she again took the witness stand and purged herself of the contempt.
The privilege of refusing to answer a question because of self-incrimination belongs only to the witness and appellant has no right to object thereto. 44 Tex.Jur., Sec. 24, pp. 966, 967; and Washburn v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 318 S.W.2d 627. The contention is overruled.
It is next contended that error was committed in the admission of appellant's written statement over his objection that such was not taken in conformity with the law.
From the record it appears that on cross-examination the witness Burleson testified that he warned appellant that his statement 'could be used either for or against him,' but on redirect examination he stated that he misunderstood the question and that he gave the warning which appears on the statement. The statement, introduced as State's Exhibit #2, contains the following language: '* * * that any statement made by me may be used in evidence against me * * *.'
In the absence of the jury, the court heard the testimony on the admissibility of the statement, admitted it in evidence, and in his charge instructed the jury that before they could consider the same as any evidence they must believe that appellant was warned by the person taking the same that he did not have to make any statement at all and that any statement made by him could be used in evidence against him on the trial for the offense concerning which the statement was made.
No error was committed by the court in admitting the statement in evidence and submitting to the jury the issue of whether the statutory warning had been given. Sandoval v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 468, 285 S.W.2d 222.
Finding the evidence sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict, and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
DICE, Commissioner.
Appellant re-urges his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cherb v. State
...United States v. Ceniceros, 427 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1970); Bowman v. United States, 350 F.2d 913 (9th Cir. 1965); Campbell v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 431, 358 S.W.2d 376 (1962). Further, in this case, Brawner had no privilege to claim, as he had already pled guilty to the offense. United States......
-
Victoria v. State
...privilege against self-incrimination for her. He cites Ex parte Miers, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 592, 64 S.W.2d 778 (1933), Campbell v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 431, 358 S.W.2d 376 (1962), and Cherb v. State, 472 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) as authority for the proposion that the privilege against self-in......
-
LaSalle v. State
...762 S.W.2d 146, 158 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1040, 109 S.Ct. 1176, 103 L.Ed.2d 238 (1989). In Campbell v. State, 172 Tex.Crim. 431, 358 S.W.2d 376 (1962), the appellant was not warned by the officer prior to the time he orally confessed to the crime, but he was "duly warn......
-
Hintz v. State
...The warning given to appellant prior to the time he made the confession introduced in evidence was sufficient. Campbell v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 431, 358 S.W.2d 376. After overruling appellant's objection to the confession, the jury returned to the courtroom and similar evidence was again ad......