Walker v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Walker v. State

12 S.W. 503, 28 Tex. Ct. App. 112, 1889 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 145

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 23, 1889

DocketNo. 3177

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 12 S.W. 503 (Walker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker v. State, 12 S.W. 503, 28 Tex. Ct. App. 112, 1889 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 145 (Tex. Ct. App. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Willson, Judge

We are of the opinion that the written statement admitted in evidence against the defendant over his objections thereto is incompetent evidence and should have been rejected. Said statement [114]*114can not be considered a voluntary statement such as is provided for by statute. Code Crim. Proc., art. 262. It was not made by the defendant as a voluntary statement. It was sworn to by him. It was not authenticated as a voluntary statement by the magistrate before whom it purports to have been made. It is clear to our minds that the statement was not admissible in evidence as a voluntary statement under article 750 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Was the said statement otherwise admissible? We do not think it was. When he made it the defendant was in custody, charged with the murder to which said statement related. He was not warned that his statement might be used as evidence against him. His confession of his own connection with the murder contained in said statement is not accompanied by a statement of facts or circumstances that were found to be true conducing to establish his guilt. Ho such fact or circumstance appears to have been discovered or found to be true by reason of any statement made by him.

Holding as we do that the admission in evidence of said statement was error, it is unnecessary that other questions jjresented in the record should be determined. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Hurt, J., absent.

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

Willson, Judge

We are of the opinion that the written statement admitted in evidence against the defendant over his objections thereto is incompetent evidence and should have been rejected. Said statement [114]*114can not be considered a voluntary statement such as is provided for by statute. Code Crim. Proc., art. 262. It was not made by the defendant as a voluntary statement. It was sworn to by him. It was not authenticated as a voluntary statement by the magistrate before whom it purports to have been made. It is clear to our minds that the statement was not admissible in evidence as a voluntary statement under article 750 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Was the said statement otherwise admissible? We do not think it was. When he made it the defendant was in custody, charged with the murder to which said statement related. He was not warned that his statement might be used as evidence against him. His confession of his own connection with the murder contained in said statement is not accompanied by a statement of facts or circumstances that were found to be true conducing to establish his guilt. Ho such fact or circumstance appears to have been discovered or found to be true by reason of any statement made by him.

Holding as we do that the admission in evidence of said statement was error, it is unnecessary that other questions jjresented in the record should be determined. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Hurt, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 S.W. 503, 28 Tex. Ct. App. 112, 1889 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-state-texapp-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack