Mullins v. State
| Decision Date | 13 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41107,41107 |
| Citation | 425 S.W.2d 354 |
| Parties | Gene Augustus MULLINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
D. C. Gandy, Fort Worth (by Appointment), for appellant.
Frank Coffey, Dist. Atty., Gordon Gray and Wayne Roberts, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is burglary of a private residence at night; the punishment, 15 years.
The indictment alleged the burglary of the private residence of Riland Martin in White Settlement, Tarrant County, Texas, on or about October 19, 1966.
The state's evidence shows that Mr. Martin was away from his home between 8 and 8:45 P.M. on said date and when he returned the glass door in the garage was broken and a color television set, some clothing and food, and $150.00 in money were missing. Some of the property was located in appellant's house in Weatherford, Texas.
Appellant made a written confession, which was found by the court to have been voluntarily made after proper warning, in which he confessed to the burglary charged and four others.
Appellant's first ground of error complains of the admission into evidence of 'that portion of the confession admitting other offenses.'
When the confession was offered, and after the court had found that it was voluntarily made, the court admitted only the portion thereof which related to the offense for which appellant was on trial.
After the state had rested, appellant, as a witness in his own behalf, repudiated his confession and testified that he had never entered anybody's house unless he was invited: 'I have not and I won't.'
The state was thereafter permitted to introduce the portion of appellant's confession in which he confessed to the other four burglaries of private homes.
The confession being otherwise admissible as the voluntary confession of appellant, the portion of the confession relating to other burglaries became admissible for impeachment of his testimony inconsistent with his confession. McCormick & Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, Vol. 1, 2d Ed., Sec. 696.
In Freeman v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 144, 354 S.W.2d 141, cited by appellant, it was pointed out that the oral statement of appellant while in custody was not admissible as original evidence because it was not made in compliance with the statute.
The rule that a confession made by the accused while in custody which would not be admissible as original evidence may not be used for impeachment has no application to a portion of a written confession admissible as original evidence which is excluded as original evidence under another rule, such as that it shows an extraneous offense.
Ground of error No. 2 complains of the admission of evidence obtained as the result of arrest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. State
...the indictment. Linzy v. State, 478 S.W.2d 950 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Jenkins v. State, 468 S.W.2d 432 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Mullins v. State, 425 S.W.2d 354 (Tex.Cr.App.1968) and Pruett v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 44, 24 S.W.2d 41 (1929). The appellant's contention is Appellant's eleventh ground of e......
-
Jenkins v. State, 43768
...can be compelled by motion, but the testimony of a witness will not be excluded because his name is not on the indictment. Mullins v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,425 S.W.2d 354. The statutory provision that the names of the witnesses upon whose testimony the indictment is found shall be endorsed the......
-
Linzy v. State, s. 44697--44699
...a witness will not be excluded because his name is not on the indictment. Jenkins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 432; Mullins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 425 S.W.2d 354. Finding no reversible error, the judgments are Opinion approved by the Court. ...