Grayson v. State

• Decision Date: 17 May 1899
• Citation: 51 S.W. 246
• Parties: GRAYSON v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

51 S.W. 246

GRAYSON v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 17, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Nacogdoches county; Tom C. Davis, Judge.

Criminal prosecution by the state of Texas against Tom Grayson. From a judgment of conviction, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the reformatory for a term of two years; hence this appeal.

Appellant objected to the introduction of his confessions, testified to by the witness Jos. Reindle; it being claimed by him in that connection that defendant was between 9 and 13 years of age, and the state not having shown that defendant had discretion enough to know the consequences of the crime or of the act. The same character of confession was also adduced on the part of the state by the witness George King. We do not understand that, before the confession of defendant can be used, it must be shown, where he is between 9 and 13 years of age, that he has intelligence and discretion enough to understand the criminality of the act charged against him. The confession of a witness is regulated by another statute; that is, where the party is shown to be under arrest, as in this case (so far as the testimony of George King is concerned), it must be shown that the party was duly cautioned or warned that his confession might be used against him. Article 790, Code Cr. Proc. A witness may not know the criminality of an act, on account of tender years, and yet be capable of testifying in the courts. Article 768, Code Cr. Proc., provides that children are not competent to testify in courts, who do not possess sufficient intellect to relate transactions with respect to which they are interrogated, or who do not understand the obligation of an oath. Colter v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 284, 35 S. W. 576; Murphy v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 35 S. W. 174. We think that, by analogy, the above statute might be applied as a test of the admissibility of confessions; that is, if the party against whom the confessions are introduced is shown not to possess sufficient intelligence to make a statement as to the transaction interrogated about, or has not sufficient intelligence to understand the nature and obligation of an oath, that the statement or confession of such witness ought not to be received in evidence. But no such objection was urged to the confessions in this case. It was simply stated...