Case Name: WILLOUGHBY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-12-10
Citations: 219 S.W. 468
Docket Number: No. 5574
Parties: WILLOUGHBY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 219
Pages: 468–471

Head Matter:
WILLOUGHBY v. STATE.
(No. 5574.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 10, 1919.
On Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 14, 1920. On the Merits, March 3, 1920.)
1. Bail <&wkey;65 — Recognizance eob appeal MUST SHOW PUNISHMENT IMPOSED.
Appeal will be dismissed, the recognizance for appeal not showing the punishment fixed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Bail <&wkey;>66 — Recognizance fob appeal in FELONY CASE MUST SHOW NAME OF OFFENSE.
Recognizance required of one convicted of felony and desiring to appeal, being prescribed by Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 903, and article 320, having reference only to form of recognizance in a felony case pending in district court, must state more than that appellant was charged with and convicted of a felony, and must give the name of the offense.
3. Bail <&wkey;72 — Recognizance fob appeal BEING INSUFFICIENT, FILING OF APPEAL BOND WILL BE ALLOWED.
Appeal being dismissed because of recognizance for appeal not complying with Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 903, appellant will be allowed to file an appeal bond substantially as prescribed by article 904, and doing so appeal will be held to have been perfected, and will be reinstated.
On the Merits.
4. Burglary <&wkey;41(4) — Bubglabious entry HELD SHOWN.
Evidence held sufficient to establish bur-glarious entry.
5. CRIMINAL LAW <@=»1036(9)— OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE NOT LOST BY CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Evidence being admitted over accused’s objection, he may cross-examine in respect thereto without loss of his objection and bills of exception.
6. Criminal law <&wkey;517(4) — Rule of admissibility OF CONFESSION WHEN STATEMENTS ABE FOUND TRUE AND ESTABLISH GUILT HELD INAPPLICABLE.
Rule that a confession is competent when in or in connection with it statements are made which are found to be true and conduce to establish accused’s guilt, such as finding stolen property, is inapplicable where officers found grips and opened them and observed their contents and intended to further examine them, and did so after, but not because of his statement that the grips were his, and there was no other evidence that they belonged to him.
7. Criminal law <@==>516 — Admission of CRIMINATING FACT HELD A “CONFESSION.”
Admission of a criminating fact, as that grips containing recently stolen goods are accused’s property, is a “confession” within Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 810, relating to admissibility of confessions.
[Ed. Note. — Por other definitions, see Words and Phrases, Pirst and Second Series, Confession.]
8. Criminal law &wkey;736(2) — Whether confession WAS MADE WHILE ACCUSED WAS IN CUSTODY IS ON UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE QUESTION FOR COURT.
What' is an arrest or custody is a question of law, and under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 734, as to province of court and jury, the evidence being uncontroverted and raising no issue of fact, it is for the court to decide whether confession was made while accused was in the custody, of an officer, relative to its admissibility under article 810.
9. Criminal law &wkey;»531(3) — Confession held MADE WHILE ACCUSED WAS IN THE “CUSTODY OF AN OFFICER.”
The uncontradicted evidence showing that when accused made his confession he was in fact under detention by officers, and nothing more being shown, he was in the “custody of an officer” within Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 810, as to admissibility of a confession.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Bowie County; P. A. Turner, Judge.
Chester Willoughby was convicted of burglary, and appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Mahaffey, Keeney & Dalby and S. I. Robi-son, all of Texarkana, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted of burglary in the district court of Bowie county, and given two years in the penitentiary.
The Assistant Attorney General has made a motion to dismiss this appeal, because the recognizance of the appellant, as the same appears in the record, does not show the punishment fixed against appellant. The recognizance is as follows:
"This day came into open court Chester Wil-loughby, defendant in the above styled and numbered cause, who, together with Frank Davenport and j, A. Davenport, sureties, acknowledged themselves jointly and severally indebted to the state of Texas in the sum of one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars, conditioned that the said Chester Willoughby, who stands charged with the offense of a felony in this court, and who has been convicted of the offense of a felony in this court, shall appear before this court from day to day, and from term to term of same, and not depart therefrom without leave of this court, in order to abide a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the state of Texas in this cause."
An inspection of the recognizance will show that the ground of the motion is well taken, and the appeal, for that reason, is dismissed. Hayes v. State, 204 S. W. 330; Goss v. State, 202 S. W. 956; Watson v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 620, 138 S. W. 611.
The motion is sustained, and the appeal dismissed.
(gs^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes