Blake v. State

379 S.W.2d 899, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1017
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 17, 1964
Docket37023
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 379 S.W.2d 899 (Blake v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blake v. State, 379 S.W.2d 899, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1017 (Tex. 1964).

Opinion

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The offense is embezzlement of $970.00 in money; the punishment, 2 years.

Conviction upon a previous trial was reversed. Blake v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 365 S.W.2d 795.

The oral statement of the appellant to his employer, B. J. Stahlman, was admitted in evidence as was the written confession of the appellant subsequently made to Deputy Sheriff H. C. Carpenter.

As a witness in his own behalf, the appellant testified that while they were alone Mr. Stahlman told him that if he would help find all the shortages in his bookkeeping system he would not file charges against him, otherwise he would "more or less throw the book at me.”

Appellant objected to the court’s charge because it did not clearly instruct the jury not to consider any oral statement made by him after he was placed under arrest and “ * * * does not clearly charge the jury not to consider Defendant’s written or oral statements introduced herein if the— have a reasonable doubt as to whether Defendant made said statements because he was promised anything or threat_

The charge of the court included an instruction relating to the statement or confession signed by the appellant, but none relating to the oral confession shown by the testimony of Mr. Stahlman.

The objection appears to have been sufficient to direct the trial court’s attention to the omission of an instruction to the effect that the oral confession of the appellant to his employer could not be considered if induced by his employer’s promise or threat. Fisher v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 379 S.W.2d 900, and cases cited.

The omission of such an instruction was calculated to injure the rights of the appellant and requires reversal.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Zachery James Hernandez v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2020
Bell v. State
442 S.W.2d 716 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
379 S.W.2d 899, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-v-state-texcrimapp-1964.