Case ID: sw_149/html/0190-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHNSON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 12, 1912.
    Rehearing Denied June 28, 1912.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 530) — Confessions— Admissibility.
    In a prosecution for robbery, a confession stating on its face that it was obtained after accused was informed that he was charged with the offense of theft by firearms, but showing together with the evidence that it was the identical offense charged in the indictment for robbery, was pi-operly admitted.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 530.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1129) — Appeal — Assignments op Error.
    An assignment that the court “misdirected the jury as to the law in the charge” given is insufficient.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2954-2964; Dee. Dig. § 1129.]
    Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Richard I. Munroe, Judge.
    Will Johnson was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Willis & Atkinson, for appellant. O. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes-
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was indicted and convicted of the offense of robbery, and his punishment assessed at 15 years confinement in the penitentiary.

The same questions are presented as to the sufficiency of the indictment as are presented in the case of Collin Robinson v. State, 149 S. W. 186, this day decided, the indictment being drawn in the same terms. For the reasons stated in that ease, we hold that the court did not err in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.

The-confession of defendant introduced in evidence was properly admitted. It is-true that in the face of the confession it is stated that, after being duly informed, he was charged with the offense of theft with firearms, etc., when he made the confession, but the confession and the evidence show it was the identical offense for which this indictment was returned. That one might be charged with theft in the examining trial, when he made a confession, and the grand jury subsequently indicted him for robbery, would not render the confession inadmissible when the evidence shows it is the same offense.

The evidence fully sustains the verdict, and the charge of the court is not complained of' in any way we can review it; it being alleged only that “the court misdirected the jury as to the law in the charge given to the jury.” The charge submitted the offense alleged in the indictment, and correctly stated the penhlty.

The judgment is affirmed.