Court Opinion

ID: 9674689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:33:54.946311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.102854
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
As I see it, this cause presents a classic situation for applying the settled rule that the State is bound by an exculpatory statement made by an accused in his confession that is introduced by the State unless the statement is shown by other evidence to be untrue. See, e. g., Walker v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 343, 135 S.W.2d 992 (1940), and the discussion of the rule in Starvaggi v. State, 593 S.W.2d 323 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); note also that it survived rehearing in Palafox v. State, 608 S.W.2d 177 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980).
In its motion to revoke the State alleged, inter alia, that on the given date appellant did appropriate described property, of the named owner “without the effective consent of the owner ... and with intent to deprive the said owner of said property ...” Of course, the owner, appellant’s employer, did not consent but the ingredient of “deprive” that is at work here is, in the language of V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 31.-01(3)(A), “to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time” that substantially its value or enjoyment is lost to the owner.
In her confession appellant admitted taking the money without permission, yet adds “but [I] intended to call my employer, inform her of my action, and bring the money *294back to her tonight,”1 and continues that she was on the phone to her employer to do so when the officers came to arrest her.
The circumstantial evidence adduced by the State does not demonstrate that her stated intent is false, and as it- stands her intent was such “as would clear or tend to clear the accused from fault or guilt,”2 Palafox v. State, supra, at 181.
Indeed, that appellant was put in an extremely stressful situation by the arresting officer simply cannot be denied. In the presence, but not in the hearing, of the alleged owner of the shop, Marshall Green,3 the officer presented appellant with a real Hobson’s choice: he told her his instructions were “to either have her or the money whenever the deputy got there” from Mi-lam County.4 This is the context in which appellant “borrowed” the property, currency, alleged in the indictment, and within minutes literally stated to Chief Wieser what her intentions were.
I respectfully dissent.

. The confession, apparently in the hand of appellant, was given just after her arrest on the same evening of the alleged offense. (All emphasis is mine unless otherwise indicated.)

. In the absence of the manager of the flower shop, appellant was left to close up and, following the usual procedure in such instance, appellant was to “put the money in an envelope and the checks or whatever it is, and put them in the filing cabinet” to be later handled by the manager.

. The majority takes no note of the fact that the flower shop is a “subsidiary” of Green’s Funeral Home, Inc., a State-chartered corporation, as Green testified. He holds seventy five percent of its shares, but his wife, who actually manages the flower shop, was considered by appellant to be her employer-supervisor. Of further significance is that Mrs. Green was away from the flower shop throughout these events.

. The “duress” contention made by appellant is dismissed by the majority because, in its view, the argument “has very little basis in the record except some of the imprecise testimony of the officers...” Here, in part, is the testimony of Milam County Deputy Charles West adduced by the State:
“A: I advised him [Chief Wieser] that I had a County Court capias number 11,731 for a Vickie Lynn Danfield, whom I had knowledge that Vickie Robert and Vickie Danfield were one in the same and I asked him to serve this warrent [sic] for me.”
Q: This warrent [sic] number that you mention, is that a warrent [sic] issued out of Milam County?
A: Yes, sir, it is.
Q: What was it for, if you know?
A: Theft of property by check.
Q: Do you have that warrent [sic]?
A: Yes, sir. 1 do.
Q: What is the date of issuance of that war-rent [sic]?
A: The date of issuance is the 8th day of February, 1980.”
Further, there is no doubt that the amount due and collected by Chief Wieser was $86.50. I am at a loss to perceive what additional pertinent information could have been supplied by the paper itself to make the testimony more precise.