Case ID: sw2d_29/html/0793-01.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

GRICE v. STATE.
    No. 13443.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 18, 1930.
    Vickers & Campbell, of Lubbock, and Benson & Benson, of Bowie, for appellant.,
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

• Conviction for theft of chickens; vpunishment, one year in the penitentiary.

In disposing of this case we deem it necessary to discuss but one question. The state was allowed, over objection, to introduce a written confession signed by appellant. Same began as follows: “I, Cecil Grice, after being warned by the grand jury, to whom this statement is made,” etc. When the objection was made, the jury was retired and the court heard testimony. It developed that the warning was in fa.ct given to appellant by Hon. Durwood- Bradley, district attorney, in the presence and hearing of the grand jury. The objection should have been sustained. The written confession should have recited that the warning- was given by Mr. Bradley. The purpose of certain changes in the law, governing- the admission of written confessions is well discussed by Judge Prendergast in Henzen v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 336, 137 S. W. 1141, where.,the proposition is emphasized as stated in article 727, O. C. P., to wit, that a written confession shall show that the party making same was warned by the person to whom, same was made. A grand jury iis not a person, nor is any group of people suoh, in the sense the word “person” is used in article 727, supra; but we can add nothing to the argument and reasons advanced by Judge Prendergast in the opinion in the case referred to. See, also, Jenkins v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 238, 131 S. W. 542; Young v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 417, 113 S. W. 276; Robertson v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 23, 111 S. W. 741; Boyman v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 26, 126 S. W. 1142. True, appellant took the witness stand on his trial, and admitted that he signed the statement; equally true that upon another trial the testimony of appellant can be reproduced against him, but he testified that he signed said statement upon certain conditions. What he said about signing same would not affect the rule under discussion. The statutory requirement in.this .regard was not observed, nor shown in the written confession.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.