Newton v. State, No. 27897
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | MORRISON |
| Citation | 162 Tex.Crim. 519,287 S.W.2d 179 |
| Docket Number | No. 27897 |
| Decision Date | 18 January 1956 |
| Parties | Oren Edward NEWTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Page 179
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Martin & Shown, by J. J. Shown, Houston, for appellant.
Don Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady and Thomas D. [162 Tex.Crim. 520] White, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
The offense is felony theft; the punishment, 7 years.
Our original opinion is withdrawn, and the following substituted in lieu thereof.
The injured party testified that he left his automobile unattended on the streets of Houston while he transacted some business, and upon his return he saw the appellant snatch a bag containing $417 out of his automobile and run. He gave chase and overtook the thief as he entered another automobile, but he was unable to halt the thief who drove away.
Two office workers heard the commotion, took down the license number of the fleeing automobile, and reported the same to the police.
Appellant's confession was introduced in evidence.
Appellant did not testify but offered his wife, who was arrested with him, as a witness. She testified that she had been present when the appellant confessed and that
Page 180
the officers had told the appellant they would release his wife if he confessed and that if he did not confess the probation department would take their children away from them.All the officers involved in the interrogation of the appellant were called in rebuttal and testified that no threats or inducements were made to the appellant to get him to confess. The court submitted this conflict in the evidence as to the voluntary nature of appellant's confession to the jury in his charge. There were no undisputed facts which would render the confession inadmissible, and the court did not err in admitting it and having the jury pass upon the issue.
We find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.
Appellant's one bill of exception relates to the refusal of the trial court to require the prosecutor to disclose the names of the witnesses not endorsed on the indictment whom the State intended to call.
[162 Tex.Crim. 521] The bill further recites that the name of John Tooke was not endorsed on the indictment and that when he was tendered as a witness by the State the appellant objected to his being called and asked the court's permission to withdraw his announcement of ready and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fernandez v. Beto, Civ. A. No. 5-345.
...159 Tex. Cr.R. 548, 266 S.W.2d 150 (1954); Decker v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 97, 282 S.W. 2d 234 (1955); Newton v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 287 S.W.2d 179 (1956); White v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 77, 289 S.W.2d 279 (1956); Scanlin v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 183, 305 S.W.2d 357 (1957); Louvier v. St......
-
Cage v. State, No. 29751
...action; hence, no reversible error appears. Ellisor v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 282 S.W.2d 393 and Newton v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 287 S.W.2d 179. We find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict of the jury finding appellant guilty and overrule appellant's contention that the sa......
-
Clay v. State, Nos. 47603
...witness. Moreover, none of the three witnesses testified to any contested fact issue in the case, see Newton v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 287 S.W.2d 179 (1956), and none testified to the shooting for which the appellants were on trial. The map which was introduced was a matter of public rec......
-
Hackathorn v. State, No. 36935
...and not mandatory. 1 Branch 2d 511, Sec. 534; Ellisor v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 282 S.W.2d 393; Newton v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 287 S.W.2d 179. It is undisputed that the appellant killed the deceased. The only issue was that of appellant's insanity as hereinbefore shown. He supported......
-
Fernandez v. Beto, Civ. A. No. 5-345.
...159 Tex. Cr.R. 548, 266 S.W.2d 150 (1954); Decker v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 97, 282 S.W. 2d 234 (1955); Newton v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 287 S.W.2d 179 (1956); White v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 77, 289 S.W.2d 279 (1956); Scanlin v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 183, 305 S.W.2d 357 (1957); Louvier v. St......
-
Cage v. State, No. 29751
...action; hence, no reversible error appears. Ellisor v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 282 S.W.2d 393 and Newton v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 287 S.W.2d 179. We find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict of the jury finding appellant guilty and overrule appellant's contention that the sa......
-
Clay v. State, Nos. 47603
...witness. Moreover, none of the three witnesses testified to any contested fact issue in the case, see Newton v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 287 S.W.2d 179 (1956), and none testified to the shooting for which the appellants were on trial. The map which was introduced was a matter of public rec......
-
Hackathorn v. State, No. 36935
...and not mandatory. 1 Branch 2d 511, Sec. 534; Ellisor v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 282 S.W.2d 393; Newton v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 287 S.W.2d 179. It is undisputed that the appellant killed the deceased. The only issue was that of appellant's insanity as hereinbefore shown. He supported......