Hickman v. State
Decision Date | 20 March 1912 |
Parties | HICKMAN v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hamilton County; J. H. Arnold, Judge.
Mulkey Hickman was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.
H. E. Trippet, R. Q. Murphree, and Langford & Chesley, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted, prosecuted, and convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.
It appears that the store of the Rotan Grocery Company at Hico was being burglarized, and the manager and night watchman of the town found one of the doors unlocked one Saturday night about the 8th of May. About 3 o'clock next morning, the two went in the store to keep watch. Mr. Carlton stationed himself at a point on the outside. About daylight appellant was seen to drive up in a buggy, get out, and go in at this door that was open. When he got inside, he heard a noise, struck a match, and saw the manager and night watchman, when he remarked, "Well, you fellows have caught me." Mr. McMillan, the watchman, asked him what he was doing in there, when he ansywered, "Well," he had just come in after his knife. It appears that prior to February 18th appellant had been working in the store, and on the trial he claimed, when he quit in February, he left a knife in the store, and had gone there after it. At the time he was found in the store, he asked what the men were going to do with him; Mr. McMillan replying: "Let's get out of here." Appellant got in his buggy, and drove around to front of the building, when Mr. Carlton came up. Mr. Carlton was placed on the witness stand, and testified: The court in approving the bill says:
Appellant accepts this bill as thus qualified and filed, and under it we must presume that at the time he did not know the officers intended to detain him, because the qualification of the court is binding upon us, when not excepted to by appellant. And his qualification appears to be supported by the evidence.
The witness was asked by the court: It has been held by this court that whatever be the intention of the officer, if he had not arrested defendant, and defendant was not apprised of his intention to do so at the time he made the statements, they are admissible. It is not the intention of the officer that governs. Hart v. State, 15 Tex. App. 230, 49 Am. Rep. 188; Cordes v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 210, 112 S. W. 943; Hilcher v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 180, 131 S. W. 593; Martin v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 264, 122 S....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods v. State
...St. Rep. 836; Bowen v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 147, 82 S. W. 520; Bronson v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 17, 127 S. W. 175; Hickman v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 583, 145 S. W. 914; Davis v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. R. 37, 155 S. W. 549. The authorities cited by appellant are without reference to the rule of ......
-
Graves v. State, 13372.
...294, 81 S. W. 945; Long v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 175, 88 S. W. 203; Hobbs v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 302, 117 S. W. 811; Hickman v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 583, 145 S. W. 914; Johnson v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. R. 441, S. W. 165. The transaction testified to by the officers was a continuous one, beg......
-
Bell v. State
...under arrest. Bronson v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 17, 127 S. W. 175; Gowan v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 401, 145 S. W. 614; Hickman v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 583, 145 S. W. 914; Powers v. State, 23 Tex. App. 42, 5 S. W. We are unable to perceive any reversible error in the refusal of the court to p......
-
Gonzales v. State
...with intent to commit theft. The statement made by appellant at the scene was admissible as a part of the res gestae. See: Hickman v. State, 65 Tex. 583, 145 S.W. 914; Matelski v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 217, 71 S.W.2d 272; and Stout v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 537, 155 S.W.2d By his second and th......