Mouton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Mouton v. State

236 S.W.2d 499, 155 Tex. Crim. 450

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 14, 1951

DocketNo. 24728

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 236 S.W.2d 499 (Mouton 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

Mouton v. State, 236 S.W.2d 499, 155 Tex. Crim. 450 (Tex. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant urges this Court to discuss whether or not the pictures, or any of them, offered in evidence amounted to a confession of guilt on the part of appellant. The original opinion herein expressed some doubt as to the propriety of the introduction of the pictures. This doubt was predicated, not upon the grounds that such pictures constituted an extra judicial confession, but because they served to solve no disputed issue in the case. These pictures do not say of themselves: “I killed the deceased.” It is quite conceivable that .such a picture could be taken but we hold that these do not come within that category. This Court in its two opinions heretofore written in this matter has held that the only sinister factor in the pictures grew out of the fact that appellant appears in handcuffs. We feel that we properly disposed of this question in our opinion on motion for rehearing.

Appellant's second motion for rehearing is overruled.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant urges this Court to discuss whether or not the pictures, or any of them, offered in evidence amounted to a confession of guilt on the part of appellant. The original opinion herein expressed some doubt as to the propriety of the introduction of the pictures. This doubt was predicated, not upon the grounds that such pictures constituted an extra judicial confession, but because they served to solve no disputed issue in the case. These pictures do not say of themselves: “I killed the deceased.” It is quite conceivable that .such a picture could be taken but we hold that these do not come within that category. This Court in its two opinions heretofore written in this matter has held that the only sinister factor in the pictures grew out of the fact that appellant appears in handcuffs. We feel that we properly disposed of this question in our opinion on motion for rehearing.

Appellant's second motion for rehearing is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 S.W.2d 499, 155 Tex. Crim. 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mouton-v-state-texcrimapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack