Sigler v. State, 20915.

• Decision Date: 24 April 1940
• Docket Number: No. 20915.,20915.
• Citation: 139 S.W.2d 277
• Parties: SIGLER v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

139 S.W.2d 277

SIGLER v. STATE.

No. 20915.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 24, 1940.

Appeal from Criminal District Court, Bexar County; W. W. McCrory, Judge.

Herman Sigler was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Ivan Irwin and Wallace B. Moore, both of Dallas, and B. F. Patterson, of San Antonio, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Bexar County on a burglary charge, and under an enhanced penalty clause alleging former convictions, he was given a term of ten years.

Appellant resided in Dallas County, Texas. Mike Nolte lived in San Antonio, Texas, and had a beer distributing business situated at 1309 East Houston Street. The building was burglarized on April 23, 1939. The witness testified that he did not know who did it; that it happened on Sunday, sometime between 12 o'clock noon and Monday morning. A safe containing $1700 was cut open from the back and the money extracted. The tools used in doing so were left on the premises. They have never been identified and the appellant is not shown ever to have possessed them or to have had any connection with them. A finger-print expert was called and he failed to find any finger prints on the tools. The money taken was mostly in $1 bills. There was some silver. There were also checks in the amount of $911. There is no evidence to show that any of the money was in $5 or $10 bills. On the next day in Dallas, the appellant appeared at an automobile place with a girl and purchased for her, in her own name, an automobile, making payment of $250 in $5 and $10 bills and larger ones. He testified that this money belonged to the young lady and that he was simply helping her to get the best bargain she could in a car and that she paid him $10 for his trouble. Appellant said that he was in Dallas County on that date and not in San Antonio, and denied any knowledge of the burglary. No one saw him in San Antonio, nor was he seen with anyone else connected with the burglary. Reliance is had for a conviction solely upon the written confession, signed by the appellant, which he repudiated upon the trial, claiming that he had been forced to sign it.

The facts with reference to the confession and the appellant's connection with it may be summarized as follows: One Carlos E. Breazeale testified that he lived in Dallas and was employed by a Distributing Company which handled the same brand of beer which Nolte handled in San Antonio; that he made a contract with Guy Nabors, said to be a man with a criminal record in Dallas, by which witness was to mark a place on the San Antonio warehouse where an entrance might be made and arrange for the robbery which Nabors was to perpetrate and give Breazeale twenty per cent of what he got for Breazeale's services. This was carried out and Nabors gave him $280. He gives no evidence of having any connection with the appellant whatsoever.

The statement of appellant was taken by E. D. Schacklett, Clerk of the San Antonio Police Department. He used a printed form in making the statement, but the record does not disclose how much was printed and how much was written in. He was called by the police, in the manner hereinafter stated, about 2 o'clock one night for the purpose of taking this statement and did so while the officers involved were in and out of the room and about the premises. The exact date of the statement is not given by the witness and the same is not dated. The date of the statement may be ascertained by calculating the number of days from the date of the arrest hereinafter detailed, which we find to be on the 29th day of June. That seems to be verified by the statement of A. G. Lankford, a City Detective of San Antonio.

The appellant testified in his own behalf and stated that he was reared in Kaufman County, Texas, where his family now resides, but during the past several years he had lived in Dallas. He did not know where he was on Sunday, April 23d, the date of the burglary, other than that he was in Dallas. He was arrested on the 20th of June and brought to San Antonio. Upon arriving there, he was carried to the Ranger Department in a big white building. He says they took him upstairs for about an hour and a half and then to Alamo Heights and placed him in a little room with bars on it.

On the evening of the second night (presumably June 21st) they took him to Floresville. He was accompanied by three officers, Smith, Robinson and Lankford, and another fellow whose name he did not know. He testified further that they stayed with him all night in Floresville; that they took him over to the court house the next morning at 10 o'clock and took him back to the sheriff's quarters; that they stood him up all night and all day, asking him questions. Some one would stay with him all the time while others slept. When he would sit down the officers would kick him and make him get up. He was made to stand up from about 10 o'clock in the morning until that night, without any chance to sleep, and all that night and day and the next day until about 11 o'clock. He had nothing to eat and no place to sleep. They next took him to San Antonio and put him in the city jail, where he stayed the rest of the night and the next day, and the next night they came up and brought him to a little room about 12 o'clock, when one of the officers got some rubber hose and struck him with it and also with his fist. They cursed him and demanded that he sign the statement or they were going to beat him to death. He told them that he knew nothing about it, and they told him that they would tell him what to say. This continued for hours. While he promised he would sign the statement, he did this because they were going to beat him to death. He was in fear of his life. An officer told him that they would take him out in a car and throw him out and kill him; that he had killed one and would like to kill another. They told him what to say before calling the clerk to take his statement. They repeated it three or four times. He said exactly what they had told him to say; that he knew that they would beat him to death if he did not do so. He said he did not put anything in there but what they told him to put in. They then took him back to jail about 3 o'clock in the morning, and the next morning his bond was approved and he was released. A lawyer in Dallas had prepared a bond and sent it to San Antonio where it appears to have been waiting for several days. Upon being released, he went to Mr. Schlesinger, who took him to some parties to observe his condition. They also took him to a photographer and had pictures made of his naked body which appear in the record and show black and blue bruises at various places from head to foot. These were said to be fresh.

Appellant testified upon cross-examination and re-direct examination that he was released from the penitentiary in 1936; that since said time he had been frequently picked up and placed in jail and carried from place to place and investigated for crimes but was always released; that he was now under indictment in Dallas County on a charge of being an habitual criminal. This charge had been pending for some time but he had never been tried.

A photographer who took the pictures found in the record identified them and said they were taken of the appellant on or about the date of his release. Upon examination, he found bruises all over the right arm, from the shoulder down to the elbow, and the whole right thigh, and then another mark on the left thigh. He testified that they were fresh bruises. The pictures were made at 10 o'clock in the morning. This was on June 29th or 30th.

Zeno Smith, a State Ranger assigned to many of the criminal cases throughout the state, testified that he was called into the case by Robinson and Lankford. There is no denial by him or any other officer that the appellant was taken to the places which he stated, but it is further related that they also took him to Seguin and San Marcos. Smith said that they took him to Floresville "because we wanted to question him about this case. We took him to Floresville without leaving word where we had gone." This was on the 24th or the 25th of June. They left at 9:30 o'clock at night. He said the prisoner was kindly treated while they talked to him about the case. They talked to him in the court house and in the jail quarters. They provided no place for him to sleep but offered him a "nice dinner" which he refused. They gave him tobacco and everything he wanted during that time and used no force on him whatsoever. They tried to find somebody who had seen him in that vicinity on or about the date of the burglary but failed to do so. Robinson and Lankford went to Dallas, stayed there a couple of days and then returned. He was continuously in the custody of some of these officers. Finally, the witness related that the prisoner told them that they had been so nice to him and treated him "fairer than any officers ever treated me, and I want to make this statement to you because you have been nice to me." He detailed statements which the appellant made about being in jail at Tyler and other places. After making the statement, he asked the officers if they did not think that was a good statement; that they told him they wanted nothing but the facts. The witness admits that appellant was taken to a different place and not placed in the Bexar County jail because he understood they had a writ of habeas corpus to produce him in court and that they were evading process by carrying him to these different places.

Charles Fuller, a deputy sheriff in Wilson County testified that when the prisoner was brought to Floresville, he was taken to the court house and forced to stand up for four or five hours. He sat down part of the time in jail; that he was talked to all day; that at that time he did not see any...