Court Opinion

ID: 9769398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:49:19.094608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:02.762795
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge
(concurring).
The case of Hemmeline v. State, 165 Texas Cr. Rep. 583, 310 S.W. 2d 97, controls the disposition of the contention that the act of sodomy by appellant and another boy on the same occasion was inadmissible because it showed the commission of an extraneous offense.
In the Hemmeline case the offense was auto theft to which plea of guilty was entered and application was made for suspended sentence. Evidence that narcotics were found in appellant’s possession and that a burglary had been committed in the area where he was first seen was held to be admissible.
The unanimous opinion in Hemmeline v. State points out that the offenses were contemporaneous with and a part of the case on trial, and were not disconnected. The contention that since Hemmeline plead guilty it was error for the court to permit the state to prove that a burglary had been committed and that appellant was in possession of narcotics was overruled.
Williams v. State, 152 Texas Cr. Rep. 490, 215 S.W. 2d 627, was distinguished: “because the offenses there proved were disconnected in point of time from the offense to which the appellant (Williams) had plead guilty, while the offenses in the case at bar (Hemmeline) were contemporaneous with and a part of the case on trial.”
The act of sodomy with another boy, being admissible as a part of the transaction, could be shown by appellant’s confession or on his cross-examination, as well as by an eye witness.
It is the act of sodomy with the second boy which was admissible under the so-called res gestae rule. Appellant’s confes*372sion was admitted under the confession statute, not as a res gestae statement.
With these expressions, I join in the approval of Judge Dice’s opinion.