Martin v. State
| Decision Date | 02 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 10888.) |
| Citation | 3 S.W.2d 90 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Navarro County; Hawkins Scarborough, Judge.
Zebdee Martin was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Davis, Jester & Tarver, of Corsicana, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of one year.
It appears that the appellant pleaded guilty in the trial court. That evidence of a search revealing a quantity of intoxicating liquor was introduced against him as well also as his extrajudicial confession. The appellant himself took the witness stand in the trial of his case and admitted that he was in possession of the intoxicating liquor and that he had sold about a half gallon of it. His own testimony in the court below clearly shows his guilt.
Appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence. It is well settled that a verdict of guilty cannot be attacked for the insufficiency of the evidence where the defendant has pleaded guilty, such plea admitting all incriminating facts. Gipson v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 364, 216 S. W. 870; Doans v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 468, 37 S. W. 751. Evidence is admitted only to determine the penalty. Gipson v. State, supra. The appellant having received the lowest penalty under a plea of guilty, this case could not be reversed for lack of sufficient evidence. Terreto v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 188, 215 S. W. 329; Coats v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 234, 215 S. W. 856.
The contention is made that there is no corroboration of appellant's confession. This rule applies only to an extrajudicial confession, and the rule invoked would not apply to the facts of the instant case.
No objections were made during the trial either to the court's charge or to the reception of evidence. On motion for a new trial, such objections were raised for the first time. Article 666, C. C. P., provides:
"All objections to the charge and to the refusal or modification of special charges shall be made at the time of the trial."
This same article also provides, in substance, that a judgment shall not be reversed unless the errors in the court's charge were calculated to injure the rights of the defendant. The indictment charges that:
Appellant "did then and there unlawfully possess for the purpose of sale spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors capable of producing intoxication."
The court in his main charge states that:
The appellant "stands charged by indictment in this case for the offense of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale."
The main attack against the charge is based upon the use of the above language by the court, appellant claiming that there is no such offense as that stated, and that it is another and different offense from that charged in the indictment. As before stated, no objection was made to this charge at the time of the trial. The charging part of the indictment quoted above and the language of the court are somewhat different, but we are not able to perceive how any injury could have resulted to appellant. This was undoubtedly not fundamental error as will appear from the case of Hays v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 550, 255 S. W. 426. It was there held that the charge of the court in a case of the theft of an automobile which authorized a conviction upon the unlawful taking instead of the fraudulent taking was not fundamentally erroneous, and that in the absence of a timely objection the use of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dinnery v. State
...confession made in the course of a judicial proceeding while testifying as a witness. Fancher v. State, supra; Martin v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 3 S.W.2d 90 (1927). The above described testimony by the appellant that he had read the indictment and that it was "true and correct" was tantam......
-
Salazar v. State
...an issue here, this Court has repeatedly held that an in-court "judicial" confession need not be corroborated. Martin v. State, 109 Tex.Crim. 101, 102, 3 S.W.2d 90, 90 (1927); see also Richardson v. State, 482 S.W.2d 645, 645-46 19. See Dix & DAWSON, supra note 16, § 31.336 at 218 (noting t......
-
Alvarez v. State, 36458
...The testimony of appellant from the witness stand is a judicial confession and as such needs no corroboration. Martin v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 3 S.W.2d 90; Guerra et al. v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 120, 134 S.W.2d 679; Fancher v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 269, 319 S.W.2d 707; McCormick and Ray, ......
-
Young v. State, 28041
...as the record shows that no objection was made during the trial to the testimony or argument of which complaint is made. Martin v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 3 S.W.2d 90; Perdew v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 152, 128 S.W.2d 60, and Doswell v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 447, 256 S.W.2d Finding the eviden......