Case ID: sw_137/html/1145-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BURTON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 17, 1911.)
    Criminal Law (§ 530) — Concession—Requisites.
    Under the express provisions of Code Cr. Ploe. 1895, art. 790, as amended by Acts 30th Leg. c. 118, a written confession by accused failing to show on its. face that he was warned by the person to whom the confession was made was inadmissible.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 530.]
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Galveston County; E. R. Campbell, Judge.
    Jack Burton was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    W. F. Kelly and Thomas C. Turnley, for appellant. C. 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
    
   PRENDERGAST, J.

The appellant was indicted by the grand jury of the criminal district court of Galveston county for murder. In November, 1909, he was found guilty of murder in the first degree and given a life sentence. It is unnecessary to give in detail the evidence in this case, because of the disposition we make thereof.

1. The court, over the objection of the appellant, permitted the state to introduce in evidence a purported confession by tbe defendant. Tbe confession, in substance, so far as tbe preliminary requisites thereof required by article 790, Code Or. Proc. 1895, as amended by tbe Acts of 1907, c. 118, is tbe same as in tbe Henzen Case, 137 S. W. 1141, tbis day decided. It is not shown in said confession, as required by said statute, that tbe accused was warned “by tbe person to whom the confession was made.” Tbe bijl of exception to tbe introduction thereof properly shows that this objection was made by tbe appellant and overruled by tbe lower court. Tbis was error, which necessarily results in tbe reversal of tbe case. See Henzen v. State, this day decided and tbe other authorities therein cited.

A suggestion is made that tbe appellant testified substantially to tbe same facts as shown by said confession, and that, therefore, no reversible error was committed in the introduction of said confession. However, in this case, as in the case of Robertson v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 21, 111 S. W. 741, the testimony of the appellant on the witness 'stand is in some respects similar to that contained in his written confession, yet in many respects it is very different, and there is much additional matter, and he testified much of his confession was not therein. The said written confession is, therefore, so disputed by the testimony of the appellant on the stand, and is of so much additional matter, that we cannot hold no error was committed in the introduction of said written confession.

2. Appellant also contends that the court committed an error in overruling his motion for a continuance. It is unnecessary for us to pass upon this question now, because of the disposition we make of the case.

3. Complaint is also made that the court should have submitted the issue of manslaughter. As the testimony appears in this record, no such charge was called for, and it would have been improper for the court to have given any such charge. Of course, if upon another trial such an issue is properly raised by the testimony, the court can then give the proper charge thereon.

For the error in admitting the said written confession to be introduced in evidence, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.