Stevens v. State

• Decision Date: 09 December 1896
• Citation: 38 S.W. 167
• Parties: STEVENS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

38 S.W. 167

STEVENS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

December 9, 1896.

Appeal from district court, Harris county; E. D. Cavin, Judge.

Willie Stevens was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Affirmed.

Mann Trice, for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and given five years in the penitentiary. There is no statement of facts in the record, and the only bill of exceptions is as follows: "The state introduced the following testimony, to wit: The testimony of John Yates, that he was present at the examining trial of this defendant before the recorder's court of the city of Houston, Harris county, Texas, and that he heard this defendant, after being duly warned by said recorder that his statement could be used against him in the trial of this case, state that he had committed the crime of burglary, of which he was charged upon this trial, which testimony was objected to at the time by the defendant, upon the following grounds, to wit: That it was not reduced to writing by the magistrate before whom it was made, signed by the defendant, and certified to by the magistrate as the law requires, and that it was not the best evidence that could be adduced to prove such statement. The court overruled the objection, and admitted the testimony, and appellant reserved his bill of exceptions."

In the first place, by the statement in the bill of exceptions that said testimony was objected to upon certain grounds, it is not certified that said grounds existed. The bill in this respect is incomplete. But concede that the court certified that the fact existed, that said examining trial evidence was not reduced to writing, was not signed by the defendant, and certified to by the magistrate; then these facts would authorize proof by parol testimony of what the witness stated before the magistrate after having been duly warned. See Guy v. State, 9 Tex. App. 161; O'Connell v. State, 10 Tex. App. 567; Kirby v. State, 23 Tex. App. 13, 5 S. W. 165. There being no errors in the record, the judgment is affirmed.