Perdue v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Perdue v. State

358 S.W.2d 129, 172 Tex. Crim. 425, 1962 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1027

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 6, 1962

DocketNo. 34,614

StatusPublished

This text of 358 S.W.2d 129 (Perdue 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

Perdue v. State, 358 S.W.2d 129, 172 Tex. Crim. 425, 1962 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1027 (Tex. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, 6 years.

The state relied upon circumstantial evidence. One circumstance was that tracks impressed on the floor of the burglarized premises were, in size and description, such as would be made by a pair of shoes which appellant said he owned and which were introduced in evidence.

Appellant’s oral statement that he owned such a pair of shoes was made while he was in jail. The sheriff was looking for shoes that made the tracks in the burglarized building.

Art. 727 V.A.C.C.P. prohibits the use of defendant’s oral confession made while in jail, or in custody of an officer, “unless in connection with said confession, he makes statements .of facts or circumstances that are found to be true, which conduce to establish his guilt, such as the finding of secreted or stolen property, or the instruction with which he states the offense was committed.”

Appellant’s oral statement and the shoes were admitted in [426]*426evidence, over propér objection, as being admissible under the quoted exception.

, The .fact that, the shoes which appellant said he owned were produced and turned over to the .sheriff did not conduce to establish his guilt in the commission of the burglary. At most, the production of the shoes corroborated appellant’s statement that he owned them. Appellant made no' admission that he wore the shoes, or.that he committed the burglary. No- individual distinguishing marks were found on the shoes from which it could be determined that the tracks were made by them, and not by other shoes of the same size and design made by the same manufacturer.

That the tracks in the building were made by such a pair of shoes was known to the officers before appellant’s statement was made.

The evidence relating to appellant’s oral statement made while under arrest could have been used by the jury to his injury, and the admission thereof was in violation of the statute; was prejudicial and calls for reversal. Shelton v. State, 168 Texas Cr. Rep. 432, 328 S.W. 2d 445, and cases cited.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, 6 years.

The state relied upon circumstantial evidence. One circumstance was that tracks impressed on the floor of the burglarized premises were, in size and description, such as would be made by a pair of shoes which appellant said he owned and which were introduced in evidence.

Appellant’s oral statement that he owned such a pair of shoes was made while he was in jail. The sheriff was looking for shoes that made the tracks in the burglarized building.

Art. 727 V.A.C.C.P. prohibits the use of defendant’s oral confession made while in jail, or in custody of an officer, “unless in connection with said confession, he makes statements .of facts or circumstances that are found to be true, which conduce to establish his guilt, such as the finding of secreted or stolen property, or the instruction with which he states the offense was committed.”

Appellant’s oral statement and the shoes were admitted in [426]*426evidence, over propér objection, as being admissible under the quoted exception.

, The .fact that, the shoes which appellant said he owned were produced and turned over to the .sheriff did not conduce to establish his guilt in the commission of the burglary. At most, the production of the shoes corroborated appellant’s statement that he owned them. Appellant made no' admission that he wore the shoes, or.that he committed the burglary. No- individual distinguishing marks were found on the shoes from which it could be determined that the tracks were made by them, and not by other shoes of the same size and design made by the same manufacturer.

That the tracks in the building were made by such a pair of shoes was known to the officers before appellant’s statement was made.

The evidence relating to appellant’s oral statement made while under arrest could have been used by the jury to his injury, and the admission thereof was in violation of the statute; was prejudicial and calls for reversal. Shelton v. State, 168 Texas Cr. Rep. 432, 328 S.W. 2d 445, and cases cited.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 S.W.2d 129, 172 Tex. Crim. 425, 1962 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perdue-v-state-texcrimapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack