Case Name: GRAVES et al. v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1930-06-04
Citations: 29 S.W.2d 379
Docket Number: No. 13372
Parties: GRAVES et al. v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 29
Pages: 379–380

Head Matter:
GRAVES et al. v. STATE.
No. 13372.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 4, 1930.
Rehearing Denied June 27, 1930.
Hamilton, Fitzgerald & Grundy, of Memphis, for appellants.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MARTIN, J.
Offense, the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty, five years in the penitentiary.
Officers driving along a road were fired upon by appellant Tucker. They prepared to return the fire, whereupon Tucker threw his pistol away and surrendered. About this time appellant Ben Graves was observed running at a distance of about a hundred yards away. Officers thereafter found a still in operation some twenty-five or thirty feet from where Graves was , first observed. Whisky was running from this still. There was present around same 43 barrels of masli, 115 or 120 empty barrels, some whisky kegs, 3 tents, bedding and groceries, and about 30 gallons of whisky in a barrel. Officers gave phase to appellant Graves and began shooting at him, killing a dog which ran by his side, whereupon Graves stopped and surrendered. Officers immediately brought him back to the still. About twenty minutes had elapsed. The officers asked him to whom the still belonged and for whom he was working, to which he answered that the still belonged to Joe Moore, and that he was working' for Moore.
Graves was under arrest at the time, and appellant presents by proper bills of exception the admissibility of the statements of Graves last mentioned, claiming that same were made while Graves was under arrest and unwarned and that they were not res-gestas. The chief contention relied on by appellant Graves to destroy the res gesta character of these statements is his claim that they were made in answer to questions. It has been many times held that this alone will not take them out of the rule of res gesta. Boothe v. State, 4 Tex. App. 211; Williams v. State, 10 Tex. App. 535; Pierson v. State, 18 Tex. App. 562; White v. State, 30 Tex. Cr. R. 655, 18 S. W: 462; Harvey v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 560, 34 S. W. 623; Johnson v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 294, 81 S. W. 945; Long v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 175, 88 S. W. 203; Hobbs v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 302,117 S. W. 811; Hickman v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 583, 145 S. W. 914; Johnson v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. R. 441,149 S. W. 166. The transaction testified to by the officers was a continuous one, beginning with the shooting and continuing without interruption to the time of the said statements of appellant Graves. They were made at the still while whisky was running from same and just after appellant's apprehension and at a time when the circumstances would indicate that he was in an excited state of mind. The res gestae rule has been so extended from its original limits that' it is now impossible under the authorities to precisely and accurately define it. Originally such a statement must have been strictly contemporaneous with the transaction to which it related. Every case under present authorities' must be measured by its own particular facts. Though the present question is not free from difficulty, the court is of the opinion that taking the record as a whole the statements appear to be of that instinctive and spontaneous character which bring them within the modern rule of res gestee and, if so, they were admissible, though appellant was under arrest. Bevers v. State, 110 Tex. Cr. R. 612, 9 S.W.(2d) 1040, and authorities there cited.
The sufficiency of the evidence is vigorously questioned. In addition to the incrim-inative facts briefly set out above, the officers testified that appellant Graves had mash on his pants. Appellant Tucker pleaded guilty. In our opinion the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
The judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court