Case ID: sw_234/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BROOKS v. STATE.
    (No. 6433.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 2, 1921.)
    1. Criminal law <©=>614(!) — Refusal to postpone trial after severa! continuances held no error.
    Where trial had been set for February 26th, and on that day was reset to March 4th, when it was reset to March 8th, and defendant’s counsel was present at the setting and later at the trial, a refusal of delay of one day to enable him to prepare for trial was not error.
    2. Criminal law <§=>1091 (4) — Objection in bill of exceptions that a written statement made by defendant was inadmissible because it showed guilt of another offense is insufficient.
    Where a statement made by defendant before trial and reduced to wilting was admitted, an objection in the bill of exceptions that it was inadmissible because it showed him guilty of another offense presented no error, since the offense might have been within one of the exceptions to the rule excluding evidence of other offenses.
    3. Criminal law <§=>406(2) — Statements of^accused in writing and signed by him, made after warning, may be used against him.
    Under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 294, and article 295, if a statement of the defendant is in writing and signed by him and made after a statutory warning, it may be used in evidence against him.
    Appeal from District Court, Brazos County; W. C. Davis, Judge.
    Tom Brooks was convicted of burglary, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The conviction Is for burglary; punishment fixed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary. The proof supports the judgment.

In bill of exceptions No. 1, complaint is made of the refusal of the court to grant a postponement for one day to enable the appellant to prepare for trial. It is averred in the bill that appellant’s counsel arrived a few .moments before the trial and had had no opportunity to consult with appellant or to secure witnesses. In approving the bill tile court states that on February 26th the trial was set for the 4th of March, and on that date reset for the 8th of the same month; that at the time it was set appellant’s counsel was present and aware of the setting. At the trial the appellant was represented by counsel.

From bill No. 2 we understand that the appellant had, at an examining trial, made a statement which was reduced to writing: that in giving his testimony he admitted that he had made the statement and did not deny its truth; that the prosecution read the statement in evidence over appellant’s Objection. The bill does not reveal the contents of the statement, but recites that it was not admissible bacause “it was a voluntary statement and was sworn to, and showed that the defendant was guilty of another offense.” We discern no error from the bill. There are exceptions to the rule excluding evidence of other offenses, and, so far as the bill discloses, one of them may have embraced the evidence in question.

Article 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to statements of the accused before an examining court. It is contemplated that it may be used against him. Vernon’s Texas Crim. Statutes, vol. 2, p. 144. Article 295 is upon the same subject. Generally speaking, if the statement is in writing, signed by the accused, and made after a statutory warning, it may be used in evidence against him. Reynolds v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 445, 199 S. W. 636, and cases there cited; Pressley v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 127, 141 S. W. 217; Rios v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 183 S. W. 152; Salas v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 485, 21 S. W. 44. The bill fails to show that the evidence was not admissible.

No other questions are presented.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      ©saPor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes