Page v. State, 60432
| Decision Date | 01 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 60432,No. 1,60432,1 |
| Citation | 614 S.W.2d 819 |
| Parties | Albert L. PAGE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Joe Petronis, Killeen, for appellant.
Arthur C. Eads, Dist. Atty., James T. Russell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Belton, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ONION, P. J., and ROBERTS and ODOM, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated robbery. Punishment was assessed at 28 years.
In his third ground of error appellant challenges the admission of his confessions. Before they were admitted, the court held a hearing on whether appellant was properly warned before the statements were given, and on whether he was threatened or coerced. He then dictated his findings and later entered an order to the effect that the confessions were made freely and voluntarily after a valid waiver of his rights. After the conclusion of the hearing and after the court's ruling, presentation of evidence to the jury resumed. When the State offered the confessions as evidence for the jury, a new ground of objection was raised by appellant:
"Your Honor, we object to the introduction of this due to the fact there has been no evidence to prove that (appellant) really understood or was not under the mental defect that he had, went to Rusk for."
This was a clear reference to earlier proceedings in the case.
On June 14, 1976, less than two months after the confessions were taken, a jury found appellant incompetent to stand trial. This court has stated that a mental defect may be significant enough to render a confession inadmissible. See Casias v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 452 S.W.2d 483, 488. The jury that found appellant incompetent to stand trial reached its decision under a charge instructing them:
"... a person is deemed incompetent to stand trial if he does not have sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or, a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."
Appellant's objection to admission of the confessions was directed to the issue of whether he was mentally competent to understand and waive his rights when he made his confession. Although the ground of error asserts the confessions should have been excluded from evidence, we will address the preliminary issue of the trial court's action overruling the objection without conducting a hearing on the issue raised by this objection. The issue we now address, under the decision in Figueroa v. State, 473 S.W.2d 202, will be considered in the interest of justice. Art. 40.09(13), V.A.C.C.P.
We quote the controlling law on this issue as it has been stated in two prior decisions of this Court. In Reed v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 518 S.W.2d 817, the Court wrote:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmah v. State, s. 01-89-00364-C
...Individual characteristics of the appellant, such as mental illness, are factors that bear on voluntariness. Page v. State, 614 S.W.2d 819, 819-20 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). In Berlanga v. State, 696 S.W.2d 425, 430 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1985, no pet.), the appellant testified that at the time o......
-
Wicker v. State
...518 S.W.2d 817, 819-20 (Tex.Cr.App.1975) (single trial objection not specifically mentioning "voluntariness"); Page v. State, 614 S.W.2d 819, 820-21 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) (single trial objection, not specifically mentioning "voluntariness," addressed to the absence of judicial warnings). Of cou......
-
Wolfe v. State
...in custody may be a fact issue to be determined by the trial court at the hearing if the issue is properly raised. See Page v. State, 614 S.W.2d 819 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). In contrast, due process involuntariness claims do not necessarily require that the interrogation be custodial. See Jacks......
-
Saenz v. State
...circumstances should certainly have put the trial court on notice that the issue of voluntariness was being raised. Page v. State, 614 S.W.2d 819 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). Having concluded under the facts of this case that the issue of voluntariness of the confession was raised, it was error for t......
-
Confessions
...Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet. ). A mental defect may be significant enough to render a confession inadmissible. Page v. State, 614 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Where the bulk of the evidence shows that the defendant had the basic reasoning skills necessary to understand his warni......
-
Table of Cases
...137 S.W.3d 75 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), §15:84.11 Page v. State, 213 S.W.3d 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), §§15:84.1, 15:84.11 Page v. State, 614 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981), §§6:56.1.9, 6:72.9 Paley v. State, 811 S.W.2d 226 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, pet. ref’d ), §15:24.1.2 Palm......
-
Misdemeanor Defense
...will trigger the need for a hearing even if the magic words “hearing” and “voluntariness” are not expressly mentioned. [ Page v. State , 614 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).] The hearing is required even if the State is offering the statement only for impeachment purposes. The total failu......
-
Confessions
...Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet. ). A mental defect may be significant enough to render a confession inadmissible. Page v. State, 614 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Where the bulk of the evidence shows that the defendant had the basic reasoning skills necessary to understand his warni......