Scott v. State, 13103.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1930
• Docket Number: No. 13103.,13103.
• Citation: Scott v. State, 26 S.W.2d 263, 114 Tex. Cr. R. 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930)
• Parties: SCOTT v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

26 S.W.2d 263

SCOTT v.STATE.

No. 13103.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 26, 1930.

Rehearing Denied April 9, 1930.

Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Richard I. Munroe, Judge.

Jordan Scott was convicted of murder, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Sam Dardnne, of Waco, and Leon Jaworski, of Houston, for appellant.

Dick Holt, Cr. Dist. Atty., and J. A. Stanford, Jr., Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., both of Waco, and A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for murder; punishment, death.

Appellant lived a short distance from the home of Robert Pedigo, whose family consisted of his wife and a little child about three years old.Pedigo and his wife were shot and both killed about March 7, 1929.Appellant made a written confession apparently in strict conformity to the statute, in which he admitted that he killed Mr. and Mrs. Pedigo.As a result of his confession the gun with which the killing was done was found in appellant's field where he had placed and covered it by plowing earth over it.An empty shell was found at a place where he said he stood and fired at Pedigo.The facts show a voluntary killing upon malice aforethought, and would appear to justify the infliction of the extreme penalty, if such case there be.

There are six bills of exception.BillNo. 1 complains of the testimony of the first witness who arrived at the scene of the homicide, who was permitted to detail his entrance into the house and his observation of the dead body of Mrs. Pedigo, it being claimed that this was inflammatory and not admissible under an indictment charging the appellant with the murder of Mr. Pedigo.According to the confession of appellant, the killing of the two appears unquestionably one and the same transaction, and the testimony complained of would appear to be material in the development of the state's main case against appellant on trial for this accusation.The same observation is true of the complaint evidenced by bill of exceptions No. 3, which was to the effect that Mrs. Pedigo's face was powder-burned, and that she was bloody, etc.The same general qualification was put by the trial court upon this bill that the entire killing was part of the execution of one design, and that same was one transaction.To the same effect is bill of exceptions No. 4 complaining of the reception of evidence of other powder burns on the body of Mrs. Pedigo.Likewise bill of exceptions No. 5 complains of the admission of testimony as to the condition of the injuries on the head of Mrs. Pedigo.This testimony was not only a part of the development of the case and in corroboration of the confession, but seems to have been admitted properly as part of the res gestæ.

A lengthy bill of exceptions was reserved to the admission of the appellant's confession.We have no doubt of the correctness of the action of the court in this regard.The length of the bill and the setting out of the testimony of the various witnesses who established the predicate for the admission of the confession precludes any extended discussion.It was shown that the appellant freely and voluntarily, and after statutory warning, made the confession.In view of expressions of some of the witnesses, however, the learned trial judge took the precaution of submitting to the jury the question as to whether the confession was freely and voluntarily made, and was in conformity to ...