Searcy v. State
| Citation | 13 S.W. 782 |
| Parties | SEARCY <I>v.</I> STATE. |
| Decision Date | 14 May 1890 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from district court, Brazos county; J. N. HENDERSON, Judge.
Ford & Doremus, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
But a single question is necessary to be determined on this appeal, and that is as to the admissibility of the defendant's confessions to the witness Dawson. Dawson was the sheriff of Brazos county, and as such arrested the defendant. Defendant made two confessions to Dawson; the first just after his arrest, and when the sheriff was taking him to jail. Dawson told the defendant "that there was no doubt but that he was one of the guilty parties, and if he would tell all about it, so that he [Dawson] could get all the guilty parties, he [Dawson] would do what he could for him in his case; it may be of interest to you, and to me, too." But he also told defendant that whatever he told him about it would be used as evidence against him. Defendant then confessed his guilt. A second confession was made by defendant after he was in jail. He sent for Dawson, and told him that he wanted to tell him all about the case. Dawson informed the defendant that "whatever he said would be used in evidence against him, [defendant,] but if he would tell him all about it, so that he could get all the parties, he would do what he could for him in his case." Defendant then confessed his connection with the crime. The first confession was excluded as evidence from the jury; the second was permitted to be introduced as evidence, over objections by the defendant. A confession, to be admissible at all, must be freely made, and without compulsion or persuasion, and, if the party is in jail, it must be made voluntarily, after having first been cautioned that it may be used against him. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 749, 750. The confession is not admissible, unless it was voluntarily and freely made, uninfluenced by persuasion or compulsion, not induced by any promise creating hope of benefit, or any threats creating fear of punishment. Mr. Wharton says: Whart. Crim. Ev. (8th Ed.) § 651. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williamson
......The defendant. was in jail at the time, and his interview was with the. prosecuting attorney and the sheriff -- persons in authority. -- and the law presumes that a confession thus induced is. involuntary.". . . In. Searcy v. State, 28 Tex.App. 513, 13 S.W. 782, 19 Am. St. Rep. 851, the sheriff told the prisoner if he would tell. him "all about it" he would do what he could for. him in his case, and the Texas court ruled that was a. positive, persuasive promise, which would render a confession. made in ......
-
Jacobs v. State
...State, 667 S.W.2d 130 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Walker v. State, 626 S.W.2d 777 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Fisher, 379 S.W.2d at 901; Searcy v. State, 28 Tex.App. 513, 13 S.W. 782 (1890). Rather than reject appellant's position based on his role as solicitor, we will evaluate his claim in light of his bar......
-
State v. Williamson
...the sheriff — persons in authority — and the law presumes that a confession thus induced is involuntary." In Searcy v. State, 28 Tex. App. 513, 13 S.W. 782, 19 Am. St. Rep. 851, the sheriff told the prisoner if he would tell him "all about it" he would do what he could for him in his case, ......
-
Pierce v. State
...be gathered from these decisions no exact formula as to what will and what will not exclude the statement. See Searcy v. State, 28 Tex. App. 513, 13 S. W. 782, 19 Am. St. Rep. 851; Rose's Notes on Texas Rep. (N. S.) p. 785; See, also, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) p. 821, note; Carr v. State, 24 Tex.......