Leviness v. State
Decision Date | 16 January 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 25390,25390 |
Citation | 157 Tex.Crim. 160,247 S.W.2d 115 |
Parties | LEVINESS v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Houston Thompson, Silsbee, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
WOODLEY, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted for the murder of Cloyce Eloise Twitchell and the jury assessed his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for life.
The trial was had in Chambers County upon an indictment returned in Hardin County, the venue having been changed following the reversal of a death penalty conviction in Hardin County. See Leviness v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 230 S.W.2d 814.
The deceased left Beaumont on the afternoon of September 28, 1948, to return to her mother's home in Colmesneil, Texas, where her three year old child was being cared for. She had gone to Beaumont and had rented an apartment to be occupied by her and her family upon the approaching scheduled return of her sea-faring husband. She was traveling in her gray colored Kaiser automobile. A lady driver of a Kaiser car of similar description was seen to pick up two men on the outskirts of Beaumont. She drove away with them toward Colmesneil on a highway which passed through Hardin County, and was reported missing when she failed to reach home.
Several days later, on October 4, 1948, in a section of Hardin County composing a part of the area known as the 'Big Thicket', a badly decomposed body was found which proved to be the doby of Mrs. Twitchell, the deceased.
The Kaiser automobile was found in Harris County on the afternoon of the day Mrs. Twitchell left Beaumont.
Some months later officers investigating the crime, received information from the Darious Golemon implicating appellant in the murder. Appellant was apprehended in Orange, Texas, about 10 o'clock on the night of June 28, 1949, by a party of officers consisting of Sheriff Kern of Harris County, two State rangers and the assistant chief of police of Orange, and following his return to Hardin County and a visit to the scene of the crime, about 8:30 the following morning, signed a confession which was received in evidence over the objection of appellant, reading in part as follows: * * *'
Appellant insists that this appeal is ruled by Prince v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 321 S.W.2d 419, and the authorities cited therein, and that the undisputed facts here show a coerced, forced, and involuntary confession as a matter of law, notwithstanding the finding of the jury that it was voluntarily made. He contends that the court's ruling in admitting the written confession deprived him of his rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, referred to as the due process clause.
Harris County Sheriff Kern testified before the court and again before the jury to the effect that at the time of apprehending appellant in Orange he believed that if he had taken the time to find a magistrate before detaining appellant, that appellant would have fled; that appellant went with the officers willingly; that as they started driving toward Kountze appellant admitted that he was involved in the murder; that appellant wanted to take the blame for the whole thing and said that he used a pine knot to beat the deceased's brains out, and told the officers that he would take them to the scene of the murder in the 'Big Thicket' and show them...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Culombe v. Connecticut
...v. State, 1954, 196 Tenn. 314, 267 S.W.2d 101. Texas: Dimery v. State, 1951, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 197, 240 S.W.2d 293; Leviness v. State, 1952, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 160, 247 S.W.2d 115; Golemon v. State, 1952, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 534, 247 S.W.2d 119; LeFors v. State, 1954, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 544, 278 S.W.2d 837; Wa......
-
Maestas v. State, 13-96-310-CR
...death or serious bodily injury. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 8.05(a); see also Cameron, 925 S.W.2d at 250 (citing Leviness v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. 160, 247 S.W.2d 115, 118 (1952)) (taking orders from another is not sufficient to raise duress affirmative defense). The duress defense is based o......
-
Mayfield v. State
...Davis v. State, 78 Tex.Cr.R. 352, 180 S.W. 1085 (1915); LaCoume v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 523, 78 S.W.2d 203 (1935); Leviness v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 160, 247 S.W.2d 115 (1952). Thus, it was not error for the trial court in such a case to have given a charge authorizing the jury to convict th......
-
Sampson v. State
...293; Gallegos v. State of Nebraska, 342 U.S. 55, 72 S.Ct. 141, 96 L.Ed. 86; Shook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 244 S.W.2d 220; Leviness v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 247 S.W.2d 115; Golemon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 247 S.W.2d 119 (writ of certiorari denied); Gasway v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 248 S.W.2d 942 (w......