Sullivan v. State

• Decision Date: 31 May 1899
• Citation: 51 S.W. 375
• Parties: SULLIVAN v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

51 S.W. 375

SULLIVAN v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Waller county; Wells Thompson, Judge.

Joe Sullivan was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

H. M. Browne and T. D. Pinckney, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted for murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of 30 years, and appeals.

Appellant contends the court erred in refusing to give certain special instructions requested by him, in which it was sought to present his theory of the case. They are based upon the proposition that the uncorroborated confession of an accused is not sufficient to justify a conviction. That is a very sound proposition of law; but, as we understand the record, it has no application to this case. The evidence places beyond question that deceased (Charley Williams) was in a ballroom, engaging in the festivities, when some one approached from the outside, and shot him through the window. It is also shown that at the time this shot was fired two shots were fired in the ballroom, one taking effect in the leg of one Gentry. There is no direct positive evidence as to who fired the shot from the outside, except the confession of defendant. His confessions are clear and unequivocal. He states that, while standing outside, he shot deceased through the window. It is well settled that the confession of the accused alone will not justify a conviction. This question has been frequently decided by various decisions in this state; but, so far as we are aware, it is settled that, the death of the deceased being shown to have been brought about by the criminal agency or procurement of some one, the confession is sufficient to connect the party making the confession with the crime. The finding of the body was not in pursuance of appellant's confession. He was shot down in the midst of an assembly of people engaged in dancing, he was seen by every one present to have been murdered, shot in the back, and through the window, the assassin standing on the outside. The rule sought to be enforced by appellant has no application to this case. Attaway v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 403, 34 S. W. 112; White v. State (Austin Term, 1899) 50 S. W. 705.

Appellant requests the court to charge the jury that the confession must be freely and voluntarily made; that the accused should be warned that he need not...