Nunn v. State
| Decision Date | 19 October 1910 |
| Citation | 131 S.W. 320 |
| Parties | NUNN et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Scurry County; C. C. Higgins, Judge.
Powell Nunn and Frank Luster were convicted of larceny, and appeal. Reversed and remanded.
John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for theft of property of the value of $50 and over; the penalty assessed being two years in the reformatory. The indictment charged the appellants with the theft of certain property, consisting of brass, oil cups, lubricators, and other articles belonging to one Leroy Johnson. All of this property was situated at the gin of Johnson, and was taken by some one and found in the possession of a man by the name of Westbrook at Colorado, Tex. There was but little testimony outside of the purported confessions of the defendants. No complaint is made of the charge of the court.
We find in the record two bills of exceptions. These bills of exceptions were reserved to the action of the court in permitting the witnesses Boyd and Wolfe to testify as to statements made to them by the defendants. The first bill of exceptions is to the testimony of Boyd, who states that he, being the county attorney, had the city marshal, Wolfe, bring the defendants to his office, and he there questioned them about this stolen property; that he questioned them separately, and they denied, at first, knowing anything about it, but afterwards admitted that they got the stuff; that they went and showed how they entered the gin to get the property, and that they had let Westbrook have it. The property was afterwards found in Westbrook's possession. The objection was made that these witnesses were under arrest, and that their testimony could not be used, because they had not been warned. The judge, qualifying this bill of exceptions, states: "The defendants were neither arrested for more than one day after they had made the statement complained about, and the statements were made to the officers, who were seeking a trial, but who knew nothing as to who had committed the offense, and each of the boys first denied, and afterwards confessed, and went with the officers, and showed how the offense was committed, and told where the stolen goods were, and the officers found said statements and confessions to be true by finding the stolen goods where the defendants had said they were, to wit, in the possession of Westbrook, to whom they said they sold the stolen goods."
No objection to this testimony was made because it was not in writing, as provided by Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawrence v. State
...of the fact that it was committed on the same day or the same night. Woodard v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 51 S. W. 1122; Nunn v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 131 S. W. 320; Branch's P. C. p. 99. If it had been shown in this case that the former burglaries had been committed by appellant and that i......
-
Wintters v. State, 60418
...is not admissible. (Citing authorities)" The extraneous offense was not admissible, then, on the theory of identity. Nunn v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 86, 131 S.W. 320 (1910); cf. Wyatt v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 73, 114 S.W. 812 Alibi was definitely an issue, but the extraneous offense still was not......
-
Manley v. State
...there was no error in admitting his statements in evidence. Martin v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 595, 124 S. W. 683; Nunn v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 131 S. W. 320; Smith v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 645, 111 S. W. 939; Collins v. State, 24 Tex. App. 151, 5 S. W. 848; Johnson v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. ......
-
Roulston v. State, A-12400
...a defendant is on trial. The weight of authority in other jurisdictions seems to support our position here: Nunn and Luster v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 86, 131 S.W. 320, 321. In this case defendants were charged with burglarizing a hardware store and trial court permitted said witness to testify......