Case Name: Jack Davis v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-02-25
Citations: 99 Tex. Crim. 477
Docket Number: No. 8665
Parties: Jack Davis v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 509–512

Head Matter:
Jack Davis v. The State.
No. 8665.
Delivered February 25, 1925.
Rehearing denied April 1, 1925.
1. —Burglary—Confessions—Practice.
Where a verbal confession made by the appellant before the grand jury, was offered by the state, and objected to, but not on the ground that appellant was under arrest at the time such confession was made, and the court was not apprised of the character of the confession when offered, there was no error in admitting it. A confession made by an accused when not under arrest is admissible against him, and if made, and not reduced to writing while he is under arrest, he should object to its introduction on that ground.
2. —Same—Confessions—Obtaining Illegally — Condemned.
The taking of a witness before the grand jury, while he is under arrest, and obtaining from him a verbal confession not in compliance with the statute, is a practice which this court does not sanction, and but for the fact that other evidence in the instant case fully supports the conviction, it would become our duty to reverse this case.
3. —Same—Confessions—Before Grand Jury — Practice.
Confessions made by an accused before a grand jury, must be reduced to writing, in compliance with the statute, as confessions made elsewhere, and the fact that a confession was made before a grand jury does not render it admissible, when not made in writing, as required by the statute. See Art. 810, C. C. P., and eases cited.
ON KEHEAKING.
4. — Same—Motion for New Trial — Practice.
It is well settled by decisions of tbis court that an appellant, represented by counsel cannot sit by and permit procedure to take place, and then complain of such procedure for the first time in a motion for a new trial. He must object to all proceedings at the time of their happening, stating his grounds and reasons for such objections, and preserve them in a proper bill of exceptions, otherwise he cannot thereafter be heard to complain.
Appeal from the District Court of Potter County. Tried below before the Hon. Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for burglary; penalty, twp years in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
A. M. Mood, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
The offense is burglary; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
Morton, the owner of the premises, testified that his house was entered and certain property removed therefrom. Noel, an accomplice, testified that he received from the appellant certain property belonging to Morton and which was identified by him as having been solen from the burglarized premises. Appellant, at the time of the arrest, had in his possession property which was also identified as part of the stolen goods. There were other circumstances tending to connect the appellant with the commission of the offense.
A reversal is sought upon the error of the court in admitting in evidence the confession of the appellant. It appears that appellant while under arrest and in jail was brought in custody of an officer to the grand jury which was in session and there admitted the commission of the offense. His testimony was not reduced to writing, but was verbal and proved by the foreman of the grand jury upon the trial of the case. Objection to the testimony was made and a bill of exceptions reserved to its receipt. Qualifying the bill, however, the trial court said in substance that at the time the testimony was offered in evidence, he was not informed that the confession had been obtained while the appellant was under arrest and no objection had been urged against it upon that ground; that he did not know that the' testimony was of that character. On the motion for new trial, appellant sought to prove and offered witnesses who would have testified that he was under arrest, was taken from the jail to the grand jury and there made the statement showing his guilt. Under the bill of exceptions taken at the time, as qualified, there was no fact within the knowledge of the court or objection addressed to the bill which would render his action in receiving it erroneous. The procedure which the record reflects, that is, the taking of a witness before the grand jury while he is under arrest and obtaining from him a verbal confession not in compliance with the statute is a practice which this court would not by any means sanction, and in the present ease, if there was not other evidence warranting the conviction, or if there was testimony justifying an acquittal, this court would'feel called upon to reverse the case because of the error to the trial court in refusing to receive proof upon the motion for new trial which would have demonstrated that the confession which was introduced in evidence against the appellant was illegal and was not admissible. The fact that the confession was made before the grand jury does not necessarily render it admissible when it is not in writing as required by the statute, Art. 810, C. C. P. See Oliver v. State, 81 Texas Crim. Rep. 529; Dover v. State, 81 Texas Crim. Rep. 545; Mayzone v. State, 225 S. W. Rep. 55; Williams v. State, 225 S. W. Rep. 177.
Taking note of the fact that in the present ease there was no affirmative defensive theory and the evidence of the State, independent of the confession, being sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant and the lowest penalty having been assessed by the jury, we are constrained to hold that we are not warranted in reversing the judgment because of the receipt in evidence of the testimony improperly admitted.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.