Case ID: sw_296/html/0520-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McCullough v. STATE.
    (No. 11008.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 1, 1927.
    Criminal Taw <&wkey;406(2)— Evidence of accused's oral statement to witness, made while accused was not under arrest, not offered as confession, held admissible.
    In prosecution for driving an automobile while intoxicated, testimony as to accused’s oral statement to witness that he was driving car in question, made while accused was not under arrest, not offered as a confession, held not inadmissible on ground that it was not in writing and signed, and did not show that accused was warned.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; C. A. Pippen, Judge.
    Sam - McCullough was convicted of driving an automobile while intoxicated, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. E.- Pinkston, of Dallas, for appellant. William McCraw, Crim. Dist. Atty., and Andrew J. Priest, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., both of Dallas, and Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for driving an automobile while intoxicated; punishment, a fine of $1 and 90 days in the county jail.

There is no statement of facts in the record. There are two bills of exception. The complaint in the first is that the state was permitted to prove an oral statement, made by appellant to a witness, to the effect that j he was driving the car in question. This was objected to on the ground that it was not in writing and signed and did not show that appellant was warned, etc., as is required of a statutory confession. The testimony was not offered as a confession. Appellant was not under arrest, and we perceive nothing in the surroundings which would make his statement inadmissible unless in writing and appellant warned.

The other bill of exceptions complains of a statement made by the assistant district attorney in his argument to the jury. There is not a particle of showing made in the bill of any reason why the statement by the assistant district attorney was not appropriate and entirely within the record.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will., be affirmed.