Rice v. State

• Decision Date: 12 January 1887
• Citation: 3 S.W. 791
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Parties: RICE <I>v.</I> STATE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

3 S.W. 791

RICEv.

STATE.¹

Court of Appeals of Texas.

January 12, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Wheeler county.

The conviction in this case was for the theft of a horse, the property of Ike Mansker, in Wheeler county, Texas, on the twentieth day of June, 1886. A term of five years in the penitentiary was the penalty imposed by the verdict. The theft by the appellant was established by overwhelming testimony.

W. H. Grigsby, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Burts, for the State.

WILLSON, J.

This conviction is for the theft of a horse, the property of one Mansker. Before indictment found, the defendant had been arrested under warrant of a magistrate issued upon a complaint charging defendant with said theft, and, upon examination of said charge before said magistrate, the complaint was read to the defendant by the magistrate, and the defendant pleaded guilty thereto. Upon the trial of this case upon the indictment, the state was permitted, over the objections of the defendant, to prove said plea of guilty made before said magistrate. This ruling of the court is insisted upon as error. It was proved that, before said plea was made, the magistrate cautioned the defendant that what he might say would be used in evidence against him. It was also proved that, just prior to said caution and plea, Mansker, the owner of the horse, had advised the defendant "to plead guilty to the theft of the horse, that it would go better with him." Defendant's plea of guilty was not made as a voluntary statement under article 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was not reduced to writing, and signed by the defendant, but was merely an oral statement that he was guilty of the charge contained in the complaint. It was therefore an extrajudicial, not a judicial, confession. To have constituted it a judicial confession it must have been made in a voluntary statement of the accused taken before a magistrate in accordance with law. But, notwithstanding it is to be regarded as an extrajudicial confession, it was admissible in evidence if voluntarily made, after having been first cautioned that it might be used against him. Code Crim. Proc. art. 750. It is made clear by the evidence that before making the plea the defendant was properly and sufficiently cautioned that it might be used against him.

The only serious question is, was the plea a voluntary confession? It is contended by defendant's counsel that it was not, because the defendant was induced to make said plea...