Case Name: X. A. Pierce v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-06-08
Citations: 90 Tex. Crim. 302
Docket Number: No. 314
Parties: X. A. Pierce v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 302–307

Head Matter:
X. A. Pierce v. The State.
No. 314.
Decided June 8, 1921.
Rehearing denied November 23, 1921.
1. — Theft—Statement of Facts — Fundamental Error — Rule Stated.
It is a general rule that in the absence of the statement of facts, where no fundamental error appears, every presumption will be in favor of .the regularity of the procedure, the accuracy of the court’s charge, and the sufficiency of the evidence. Following Davis v. State, 3 Texas Crim. App., 163, and other cases.
2. — Same—Evidence—Confession—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, independent of appellant’s written confession, the facts disclosed that the property in question was found in the possession of the defendant, recently thereafter, and pointed to the guilty knowledge of defendant, and under his verbal confession, stating where the property could be found, the same was found by the officers at the place indicated, the conviction was sustained, regardless of the written confession in evidence, and regardless of the fact that the officer told him that it would be better to disclose the fact, following Jones v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 330.
S. — Same—Voluntary Confessions — Rule Stated — Practice in Trial Court.
To render a confession inadmissible upon the ground that it was induced by the promise of some benefit to the defendant, such promise must be positive, and must be made or sanctioned by a person in authority, and it must also be of such character as would be likely to influence the defendant to speak untruthfully. However, in cases of doubt, the better practice seems to be to permit the jury, under proper instructions to determine whether the confession was voluntary. Following Berry v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 391, and other cases.
4. — Same—Written Confession — Examining Court — Evidence—Affidavit.
Where in the instant case the statement in an examining court while the accused was under arrest contained all of the requisites of a confession named in Article 810, C. C. P., it is not rendered inadmissible by the fact that it is sworn to. Following Salas v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 486, and other cases.
5. — Same—Evidence—Confessions—Harmless Error.
If it be assumed that there was error in admitting in evidence the written statement of defendant, it would not justify a reversal for the reason that all of its criminating elements were in evidence through his verbal confession previously made and properly admitted. Following Eaurence v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 601, and other cases.
6. — Same—Exculpatory Statements — Charge of Court.
Where the written statement of defendant introduced in evidence contained exculpatory matter which the State sought to disprove, and the court gave a proper charge under the facts of the case, and submitted defendant’s theory of purchase of the property, etc., it fully protected the rights of defendant and there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of Cherokee. Tried below before
the Honorable L. D. Guinn.
Appeal from a conviction of theft over the value of $50. Penalty, four years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Perkins & Perkins, for appellant.
R. H. Hamilton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, PRESIDING Judge.
Appellant was convicted of theft; punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of four years.
The record is before us without a statement of facts. Certain exceptions to the charge and the admission of evidence appear. It is a general rule that in the absence of a statement of facts, where no fundamental error appear, every presumption will be in favor of the regularity of the procedure, the accuracy of the court's charge and the sufficiency of the evidence. Davis v. State, 2 Texas Crim. App. 162; and other cases listed in Branch's Ann. Penal Code, Sec. 602. Exceptions to this rule at times arise but nothing in this record brings the instant case within any of them. Mitchell v. State, 2 Texas Crim. App., 404, referred to by Mr. Branch in the section mentioned; Williams v. State, 77 S. W. Rep., 447; Walker v. State, 98 S. W. Rep., 265; Denton v. State, 42 Texas Crim. Rep., 427; Hare v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Rep. 6, Brown v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep. 269.
In the case before us, we are without the benefit of a brief for appellant, and there is but one bill of exceptions which challenges our attention. That relates to the introduction of the confession of the appellant. Two questions arise, namely: Was there a warning given? and, Was the confession voluntary ?
The statement is sworn to and given in an examining court in the presence of the Justice of the Peace and the County Attorney. It is not made clear from the bill whether it was in the nature of testimony on preliminary trial of a confession in the technical sense. If the former, the warning was unnecessary to render it admissible. Kirkpatrick v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 17, 121 S. W. Rep., 511; Dill v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep. 240; Rios v. State, 183 S. W. Rep. 152.
We think the bill of exceptions does not show error. If this were doubtful, however, we would not feel authorized to reverse the judgment because of the admission of the statement for the reason that it is disclosed by another bill of exceptions that there was introduced in evidence a verbal confession of the appellant, which we think was admissible under the phase of Article 810 which permits the use of verbal confessions where "they are accompanied statements made by the accused from which the confession is found to be true or which conduce to establish his guilt."
From the qualification of the bill complaining of the receipt of the verbal confession, it is made to appear that by means thereof the stolen property was discovered. This being true, the verbal confession was admissible. Smith v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep. 643; Vernon's Texas-Crim. Statutes, vol. 2, page 756, note 12, and cases cited. The verbal confession, having been properly admitted, and in going to establish the same fact to the proof of which the written statement was directed, any supposed error in the admission of the latter would be rendered harmless. Fulcher v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App. 470; Brown v. State, 20 S. W. Rep., 924; Laurence v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 601, Amer. Digest, Century Edition, Vol. 15, page 933.
Especially is this true in the instant case where effect must be given to the presumption that there was before the jury legal evidence adequate to sustain the conviction.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.