Case Name: Sherman Stephens v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-01-30
Citations: 83 Tex. Crim. 50
Docket Number: No. 4868
Parties: Sherman Stephens v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 50–54

Head Matter:
Sherman Stephens v. The State.
No. 4868.
Decided January 30, 1918.
Burglary—Incriminating Testimony—Grand Jury.
Where, upon an appeal from a conviction of burglary, the record showed: that appellant was carried before the grand jury and there made incriminating testimony against himself connected with the charge against him, and upon trial of the case objected to the introduction thereof as evidence, which the court overruled, the same was reversible error and was not cured by withdrawing same from the jury. Prendergast, Judge, dissenting.
Appeal from the District Court of Henderson. Tried below before the Hon. John S. Prince.
Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
The court permitted Ora Hart to testify for the State over the objection of the defendant, and his testimony was as follows:
“The negro, Sherman Stephens, testified before the grand jury as follows: ‘Said he got up there at Tom Frizzell’s, he got up there at the house. It seems he saw a squirrel up the road before he got to the house. He goes on up to the house; I believe he said the doors were open and he went in the house and got something to eat; don’t remember just about that; but anyway there was a gun sitting over in the corner; he got the gun and went on to find the equirrel; he couldn’t find the squirrel, and two or three hours after that they caught him. I believe he said that the doors were open, both doors were open and he jusfwalked in—I believe that is what he said.’
“Judge J. S. Prince: Before giving the charge the court permitted the witness Ora Hart to testify over the objection of the defendant to certain statements which the witness testified that the defendant made in the grand jury room—I now believe that that testimony was not admissible and I withdraw it from you. You will not consider it for any purpose in the world; it is just as though you had not heard it.”
The defendant’s attorneys objected to the court permitting the said Ora Hart to testify, and the court overruled the objection and did permit said witness to testify as set out above, but just before he went to read the charge to the jury he then instructed the jury not to consider said testimony for any purposes as set out above. That the defendant objected and excepted to the decision of the court, and this was done at the time said testimony was offered.
Miller & Miller, for appellant.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of burglary, his punishment being assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
It is deemed unnecessary to notice but one question, which is properly raised by bill of exceptions which shows that appellant was carried before the grand jury and there made statements. These were incriminating and connected him with the burglary. Objections urged to the introduction of this evidence were overruled. The testimony remained before the jury until the court gave his charge, when it was by the charge withdrawn. This was error and of such a nature that we are of opinion its withdrawal did not cure the error.
The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.