Coomer v. State

• Decision Date: 12 March 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 8178.)
• Citation: 260 S.W. 568
• Parties: COOMER v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

260 S.W. 568

COOMER v. STATE.

(No. 8178.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 12, 1924.

Rehearing Denied April 16, 1924.

Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County; C. A. Pippen, Judge.

Clayton Coomer was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Baskett & De Lee, of Dallas, for appellant.

Shelby S. Cox, Cr. Dist. Atty., of Dallas, and Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in criminal district court No. 2 of Dallas county of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at 18 months in the penitentiary

On the night in question, officers raided a still in Rowlett creek bottom some miles from Dallas. Three parties were observed in and around the still doing various acts contributing to the manufacture of liquor, one of whom was appellant. He was presently observed to come toward the party of officers with a five-gallon jug of whisky. He was arrested. A shooting followed, in which one of the officers was killed.

Four bills of exception appear. The indictment contains three counts, the first of which only was submitted. Said count charged appellant with the unlawful manufacture of spirituous, etc., liquor capable of producing intoxication. The motion to quash the indictment was properly overruled.

After his arrest appellant made a written statement which was introduced against him upon this trial. An agreement which is incorporated in the second bill of exceptions sets out that the arrest of appellant was December 21, 1922, and that he was indicted for the murder of the officer mentioned on December 28th following, and that he was indicted herein for the manufacture of liquor on February 24, 1923. In said agreement it also is set out that the confession of appellant was written with a typewriter, except the concluding paragraph, which was written by appellant himself with pen and ink. The confession was taken the morning after his arrest. Objection was made to the introduction of said confession upon four grounds. First, that the warning contained in said statement did not show it was voluntarily made; second, that the warning set out was insufficient in law; third, that the warning did not show what offense the confession referred to; and, fourth, that if the confession showed it related to any offense, it was the offense of murder and not that of manufacturing liquor. We cannot uphold either contention. The last paragraph of the confession, the one written by appellant himself, is as follows:

"I, Clayton Coomer, freely and voluntarily made the above statement of 5 typewritten pages and have read and understand what is written in it. Before making this statement, and before signing it, I was warned by Shelby S. Cox and C. D. Bell that I did not have to make any statement about running a still or making the stills or about making the...