Moore v. State, 47758
Decision Date | 06 March 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 47758,47758 |
Citation | 505 S.W.2d 887 |
Parties | James Paul MOORE, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. W. Tyner and Jerry E. Bain, Tyler, for appellant.
Larry Miller, Dist. Atty., Greenville, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Buddy Stevens, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DALLY, Commissioner.
The conviction, after a plea of guilty before a jury, is for the possession of marihuana; the punishment, imprisonment for five years.
The admission into evidence of appellant's oral confession presents a serious question.
To be admissible an oral confession must meet the requirements of both Article 38.22, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See Valerio v. State, 494 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Butler v. State, 493 S.W.2d 190 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Burns v. State, 486 S.W.2d 310 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Herron v. State, 485 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Noble v State, 478 S.W.2d 83 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Walker v. State, 470 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Fields v. State, 468 S.W.2d 71 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Robinson v. State, 441 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Lee v. State, 428 S.W.2d 328 (Tex.Cr.App.1968).
Article 38.22, Section 1, V.A.C.C.P., as it relates to oral confessions, provides:
'The oral . . . confession of a defendant made while the defendant was . . . in the custody of an officer shall be admissible if:
'. . . the defendant makes a statement of facts or circumstances that are found to be true, which conduce to establish his guilt, such as the finding of secreted or stolen property, or the instrument with which he states the offense was committed.'
Article 38.22, Section 2, V.A.C.C.P. also provides in part:
The portion of Article 38.22, Section 2, V.A.C.C.P. just quoted embodies the constitutional requirements articulated in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). See also Lopez v. State, 384 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.Cr.App.1964). These requirements are applicable to oral confessions. See Valerio v. State, supra; Burns v. State, supra, and Wilson v. State, 473 S.W.2d 532 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).
The prosecutor on redirect examination of one of the officers asked:
It was shown that the time referred to was the day after his arrest and the appellant was in the custody of two officers being transferred from the City Jail in commerce to the County Jail in Greenville. After several objections were made it was shown that the appellant had been advised of his constitutional rights by the arresting officer and by a magistrate the morning after his arrest. The officer was then asked by the prosecutor 'What was the conversation?' and the following occurred:
This inculpatory oral statement which was admitted in evidence was a 'confession' within the meaning of Article 38.22, V.A.C.C.P. and subject to its requirements. See Garner v. State, 464 S.W.2d 111 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Whiddon v. State, 492 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Martinez v. State, 498 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); cf. Butler v. State, supra.
The objection challenging the voluntariness of the confession or statement even without a specific request for a hearing outside the presence of the jury sufficiently raised the question making it incumbent upon the Court to comply with the requirements of Article 38.22, Section 2, V.A.C.C.P. See Harris v. State, 465 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) (with Judge Douglas dissenting). k
The Court's failure, prior to the admission of appellant's oral confession, to conduct a hearing in the absence of the jury and to make manifest of record findings of fact and conclusions of law that the oral confession was voluntarily made was error. Article 38.22, Section 2, V.A.C.C.P.; Davis v. State, 499 S.W.2d 303 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).
The jury was authorized to consider all of the evidence admitted in determining the proper punishment to be assessed. See Article 26.14, V.A.C.C.P. The erroneous admission of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Watson v. State
...precede such oral statements. See Perillo, supra, at 575; Butler v. State, 493 S.W.2d 190, 193, n. 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Moore v. State, 505 S.W.2d 887 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).4 It is observed that the word "arraigned" was first used by the prosecutor in framing his questions to Officer Myer. The ......
-
Warren v. State
...Miranda requires exclusion, the inquiry regarding admissibility ends. Smith v. State, 507 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Moore v. State, 505 S.W.2d 887 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Miranda warnings about the accused's right to counsel and right to remain silent are required only prior to custodial int......
-
Wicker v. State
...issue. Harris v. State, 465 S.W.2d 175, 177 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) (repeated trial objections based upon voluntariness); Moore v. State, 505 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex.Cr.App.1974) (single trial objection); Reed v. State, 518 S.W.2d 817, 819-20 (Tex.Cr.App.1975) (single trial objection not specificall......
-
Moon v. State
...384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) are first met. Warren v. State, 514 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Moore v. State, 505 S.W.2d 887 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Smith v. State, 507 S.W.2d 779 Article 38.22, Sec. 6, supra, then sets out the responsibilities of the trial court to hold a......
-
Confessions
...oral confession is questioned, a voluntariness hearing must be held. It is reversible error to not hold such a hearing. Moore v. State, 505 S.W.2d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). A defendant can invoke the right to an attorney as to a written statement while waiving the right as to oral stateme......
-
Confessions
...oral confession is questioned, a voluntariness hearing must be held. It is reversible error to not hold such a hearing. Moore v. State, 505 S.W.2d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. A defendant can invoke the right to an attorney as to a written statement while waiving the right as to oral statements. Co......
-
Confessions
...oral confession is questioned, a voluntariness hearing must be held. It is reversible error to not hold such a hearing. Moore v. State, 505 S.W.2d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). A defendant can invoke the right to an attorney as to a written statement while waiving the right as to oral stateme......
-
Confessions
...oral confession is questioned, a voluntariness hearing must be held. It is reversible error to not hold such a hearing. Moore v. State, 505 S.W.2d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). A defendant can invoke the right to an attorney as to a written statement while waiving the right as to oral stateme......