Wood v. State

• Decision Date: 20 June 1889
• Citation: 12 S.W. 405
• Parties: WOOD <I>v.</I> STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

12 S.W. 405

WOODv.

STATE.

Court of Appeals of Texas.

June 20, 1889.¹

Appeal from district court, Grayson county; H. O. HEAD, Judge.

William Wood, alias William Carson, was convicted on an indictment for rape, and appeals. Several witnesses for the defense testified positively that defendant was in Dallas — 60 miles distant from the city of Sherman, the scene of the alleged rape — on the night it occurred. Two witnesses for the state testified as positively that he was in Sherman early on that night, and early on the next morning.

Woods & Turner, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.

WHITE, P. J.

But three bills of exception appear in this record. As to the first, the judge explains that after he had overruled the application for continuance, and before the impaneling of the jury was completed, both the absent witnesses named in said application appeared, and that one was excused by defendant, the other remaining to testify. Defendant could not possibly be injured, under the circumstances. The state proved by John Blain that he was marshal of the city of Sherman, and as such officer, went to Dallas, and on Friday, June 8, 1888, at about 11 o'clock, he arrested defendant on Main street, in Dallas. That shortly thereafter, on the same day, he put defendant on the train, and started with him to Sherman. That defendant had been legally warned as to any statements made by him at the time of the arrest. That shortly after leaving Dallas he (the witness Blain) asked defendant if he (defendant) saw Nat Gunter in Dallas on Wednesday night, (the night of the rape.) Defendant replied that he saw Gunter on Tuesday night, (the night before the rape.) Defendant then proposed to prove by said Blain that when he arrested defendant, about 11 o'clock, he at that time warned him as to his statements, and that defendant then and there told him (said Blain) that he (defendant) was in Dallas on Wednesday night, (the night of the rape at Sherman,) and that he was innocent of the charge. To which the prosecution objected, because the same was a statement in defendant's interest; and the court sustained the objection, and excluded the evidence.

"Declarations made by a defendant in his own favor, unless a part of the res gestæ, or of a confession offered by the prosecution, are not admissible for the defense." Whart. Crim. Ev. (8th Ed.) § 690. They are considered as self-serving. But our statute provides that "where a detailed act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, or writing which is necessary to make it fully understood, or to explain the same, may also be given in evidence." Code Crim. Proc. art. 751. Such declarations, acts, etc., are admissible whether res gestæ or not. Willson, Crim. St. § 2481. The criterion for their admissibility is, are they necessary to make any other act or declaration of defendant which has been proved by the prosecution fully understood, or do they explain the same? In this case the state had proved that defendant told Blain that he had seen Gunter in Dallas on Tuesday night. Did the fact that he had previously told Blain that he (defendant) was in Dallas on Wednesday night, and that he was innocent of the rape, tend in any manner to explain his statement that he had seen Gunter in Dallas on Tuesday night, or did it in any manner tend to make this latter statement any more fully understood? We cannot see that it does. As shown by the bill of...