Holmes v. State
| Decision Date | 10 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 9139.) |
| Citation | 273 S.W. 849 |
| Parties | HOLMES v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Newton County; V. H. Stark, Judge.
Joe Holmes was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
J. B. Forse, of Newton, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
The appellant was charged by indictment with murdering Alfred Grayson in the district court of Newton county, convicted of manslaughter, and his punishment assessed at five years' confinement in the penitentiary.
Complaint is made by the appellant in bill No. 2 to the action of the court in permitting the state's witness Binson, a constable, to testify to an alleged conversation between the defendant and one De Hart and his wife, after they arrested the defendant, to the effect that "I heard defendant tell Dalhart and his wife that he was going to tell that he had been over there two or three days looking after his stock, and he says I have already arranged for a $10,000 bond, and he says I was expecting them." There was no contention that said statement was reduced to writing, or that the defendant was warned, as required by law, when said statement was made.
As bill of exception No. 3, raises a similar question, we can dispose of both together. In this bill it is shown that the defendant was placed in jail awaiting an examining trial. The state was permitted, over the appellant's objection, to introduce in evidence from the witness Hall, whom the bill shows went with the father of defendant and a man by the name of Taylor to the jail, where the following conversation occurred between the defendant and the defendant's father:
The objection urged to this testimony was that the defendant was under arrest and in jail, and had not been warned, as required by law, and the statements had not been reduced to writing, as required by law, all of which was overruled, and the testimony was admitted.
We believe in both instances, as set out in bills Nos. 2 and 3, the court was in error. Buckner v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 271, 106 S. W. 363; Clark v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 390, 207 S. W. 98; Bonatz v. State, 85 Tex. R. R. 292, 212 S. W. 495; Dover v. State, 81 Tex. Cr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanchez v. State
...to be true, which conduce to establish his guilt, * * * ", or unless such oral confession is a part of the res gestae. Holmes v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 635, 273 S.W. 849; Lightfoot v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 515, 35 S.W.2d 163; Broussard v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 114 S.W.2d 248; Yarbrough v. St......
-
Butler v. State, 44220
...to be true, which conduce to establish his guilt, * * *', or unless such oral confession is a part of the res gestae. Holmes v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 635, 273 S.W.2d 849; Lightfoot v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 515, 35 S.W.2d 163; Broussard v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 114 S.W.2d 248; Yarbrough v. S......
-
Pierson v. State
...to be true, which conduce to establish his guilt, * * *", or unless such oral confession is a part of the res gestae. Holmes v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 635, 273 S.W. 849; Lightfoot v. State, 117 Tex. Cr.R. 515, 35 S.W.2d 163; Broussard v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 114 S.W.2d 248; Yarbrough v. St......
-
Woodson v. State
...many cases. See Hernan v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 464, 60 S. W. 766; Dover v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 545, 197 S. W. 192; Holmes v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 635, 273 S. W. 849, and many precedents therein collated. See, also, Morales v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 234, 36 S. W. 435, 846, and Brent v. S......