Greer v. State

• Decision Date: 31 January 1868
• Citation: 31 Tex. 129
• Parties: JOHN L. GREER v. THE STATE.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

31 Tex. 129

JOHN L. GREER

v.THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Texas.

January, 1868.

Articles 661 and 662 of the code of criminal procedure only admit confessions to be used against the accused where they have been freely made, without compulsion or persuasion; and if the accused was in prison the rule is given in the statute. Pas. Dig. arts. 3126, 3127, 2d ed.

If under a threat a party show the stolen property, his confession that he stole it should not be used against him, unless it be also proved that it was his voluntary confession before a magistrate, or else made after he was cautioned that it might be used against him. Pas. Dig. 2d ed. art. 3127, note 761.

O. F. Hunsaker, for appellant, cited the statute about confessions.

John W. Harris, for the state, insisted that the confession was not protected by the statute; that the fact of pointing out the place could be used notwithstanding the threat. 2 Stark. Ev. 26, 449, 450; Bur. Circum. Ev. 66, 455, 456.

HAMILTON, J.

This was an indictment and conviction of the appellant in the criminal court for Galveston county for stealing a watch, of the value of more than $20. On the trial, as appears from the statement of facts, which presents the evidence of the witnesses in a somewhat confused and unsatisfactory manner, that the appellant, while in the custody of the police officer who arrested him upon the charge of stealing the watch, under a threat, went and showed where the watch was, it being under the boards of a house, and that while the appellant was in his custody he said he had stolen the watch, that it was the first theft he ever committed, and he was very sorry for it, etc.

It is not altogether clear from this statement whether the confession of the theft was before or after the threat, which preceded the disclosure of the place where the watch was concealed, nor is it important to inquire.

It has been urged by the counsel for the state that the rules provided by the code of criminal procedure ought not to apply in this case, because they are designed to protect parties in duress from false statements against themselves, under the influence of fear occasioned by threats, and upon the presumption that any statements so made are unreliable; whereas in this case the fact of the appellant showing the place of concealment of the stolen property excludes every such presumption. If the conviction rested alone upon the fact of the accused disclosing under threats the place where the watch was concealed, we will not now undertake to decide whether or not the case would be within the reason of the rule excluding evidence of confessions made under threat. We are inclined to think it would not.

But we are not at liberty...