Prince v. State
| Decision Date | 31 May 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 24750,24750 |
| Citation | 155 Tex.Crim. 108,231 S.W.2d 419 |
| Parties | PRINCE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Fred Whitaker, of Carthage, Tom Bankhead, of Carthage, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
This is a conviction for uxoricide, with punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for fifty years.
When this case was before us, Ex parte Prince, Tex.Cr.App., 223 S.W.2d 241, on application for bail, we called attention to the fact that a serious question existed as to the admissibility of appellant's confession.
Upon the trial of this case there was introduced before the court certain parts of that testimony tending to show the inadmissibility of the confession and, in addition thereto, the facts were fully developed before the jury.
The admissibility of the confession was by the trial court submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions to disregard the confession in the event they entertained a reasonable doubt as to whether it was voluntarily made by appellant and without coercion or duress. This is the approved procedure where issues of fact arise as to the voluntariness of the confession. On the other hand, if the undisputed facts show that the confession was not and could not have been voluntarily made, then the admissibility of the confession is a question of law for the court.
In passing upon the admissibility of the instant confession, then, we look to the undisputed facts. This is the rule not only of this court but also of the Supreme Court of the United States.
It would serve no useful purpose to here detail the facts. As we construe this record, the undisputed facts show that appellant was questioned at intervals and at length by the officers and prosecuting attorneys from the afternoon of Wednesday, May 25, 1949, until three or four o'clock, a. m., Saturday, May 28, 1949. During this period of time appellant was carried to Austin, a distance of 280 miles, where he was subjected to the 'lie detector' test at the Department of Public Safety.
The confession was finally made after appellant's return from taking the 'lie detector' test and after he had been carried to his home to the scene of the alleged crime, where his wife, whom he was alleged by the officers to have killed, had been found dead. It was then and not until then that appellant made the confession.
During all this period of time, no formal accusation was filed against appellant, nor does it appear that he was carried before a magistrate, as required by Art. 217, c.c.p.
The Supreme Court of the United States has announced the law to be that a conviction by a state court for a state crime by the use of a coerced, forced, or involuntary confession constitutes a denial of due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. In such cases, that court takes jurisdiction and, from its independent examination, determines from the undisputed facts whether the confession was procured under circumstances rendering its admission as evidence a denial of due process. It is by reason of that rule that this court in every case involving the admissibility of a confession in evidence must first determine if the confession is inadmissible under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Whether a confession is admissible in evidence under the laws of this state is of no consequence and is not the subject of inquiry until this court has reached the conclusion that the confession was not procured under circumstances condemned by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Confessions were found by the Supreme Court of the United States,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fernandez v. Beto
...Newman v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 645, 187 S.W.2d 559 (1945); Holt v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 399, 208 S.W.2d 643 (1948); Prince v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 108, 231 S.W.2d 419 (1950); Sanchez v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 364, 235 S.W.2d 149 (1951); Herrera v. State, 158 Tex.Cr. R. 505, 256 S.W.2d 851 (19......
-
Zuliani v. State
...v. State, 247 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 847, 73 S.Ct. 60, 97 L.Ed. 659 (1952); Prince v. State, 155 Tex.Crim. 108, 231 S.W.2d 419, 421 (App.1950). The United States Supreme Court has long held that certain interrogation techniques, either in isolation or as app......
-
Leonard v. State
...(1943) (Willacy County murder suspect “taken to San Antonio and placed before what was called a ‘lie detector.’ ”); Prince v. State, 155 Tex.Crim. 108, 231 S.W.2d 419, 420 (1950) (Panola County “uxoricide” suspect “was carried to Austin, a distance of 280 miles, where he was subjected to th......
-
State v. Terraza
...on the voluntariness of a confession, trial court had no discretion but to submit the issue to the jury); see also Prince v. State, 231 S.W.2d 419, 420 (Tex.Cr.App. 1950) (trial court could suppress confession only if "undisputed facts in criminal case show that confession was not and could......