Court Opinion

ID: 9769307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:44:22.107047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:00.162635
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge
(dissenting in part and concurring in part).
Appellant urges this Court to reconsider his ground of error # 1, relating to testimony received concerning an oral confession made by the appellant. I have done so and conclude that the Court erred in its disposition of this ground. The reliance by the majority on original submission upon Art. 38.24, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., was misplaced and totally ignores the rule of law as properly announced in the unanimous decision of this Court in Roman v. State, 503 S.W.2d 252 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). As was stated in the original majority opinion, the controversy centers around the following colloquy, which occurred as Officer Burks testified:
[Defense Counsel cross-examining]
“Q You just came in and said T want the truth, nothing but the truth,’ right ?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q All right. When you said this to Mr. Patterson [appellant], what, if anything, did he say to you ?
“A He told me that he understood that I was like his father. His father had been a policeman and that’s all his father ever wanted was the truth.”
On re-direct examination, the State elicited the following testimony from this witness, to-wit:
“Q Now, this comment he [appellant] made about his father, could you tell the jury what he said ?
*864“A He told me that he understood, that I was like his father; his father was a policeman and that’s all he ever wanted was the truth.
“Q Did he then tell you that he had killed this woman? [Emphasis added]
“A Yes, sir, he did.”
The majority opinion states that the appellant told Officer Burks “that all he wanted was to tell the truth about the offense under investigation” and that appellant introduced the fact that “[he] was motivated to tell the truth.” I cannot agree that the record actually supports such statements. A reading of the record reflects that prior to the colloquy quoted above the following cross-examination of Burks occurred:
“Q When you first walked into the door and Mr. Patterson was in the interrogation room, would you tell us what you said to him, please, sir. ?
“A I told him I was a police officer and that I was interested in the truth; I didn’t want anything but the truth from him.
“Q The truth and nothing but the truth ? c
“A Yes, sir.
“Q Did you tell him you didn’t want any more damn lies ?
“A I probably did tell him I didn’t want to hear any lies, yes, sir.
“Q Well, when you said this to Mr. Patterson did you say it in a pleasant tone?
“A In a matter of an interview, I told him I didn’t want him to lie to me, that I just wanted the truth.”
It is illogical to say that because the appellant thought of the officer as a father-image, and that his own father always sought out the truth, an oral confession at that point sheds light on the same subject. Sanders v. State, 458 S.W.2d 193 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). What the majority opinion on original submission overlooked is the fact that the subject involved at this point in the record was the amount of coercion, if any, which prompted the appellant’s written confession.
As was stated in Roman v. State, supra:
“The purpose of this provision [Art. 38.24, V.A.C.C.P.] is to reduce the possibility of the fact finder receiving a false impression from hearing the evidence of only a part of the conversation, writing, act or declaration. The theory behind the rule is that by allowing the jury to hear the rest of the conversation on the. same subject the whole picture will be filled out, removing any misleading effect which may have occurred from introduction of only a portion of the conversation. Obviously this purpose is achieved by receipt of the balance of the conversation on the same subject. But to permit under this rule the introduction of other portions of such a conversation wholly unrelated to the matter initially gone into cannot contribute to achievement of the purpose of the rule.” (Emphasis supplied in the first instance only)
The original majority opinion failed to state what it considered to be the “misleading effect” which the appellant left. The subject in question was the voluntariness of the written confession and the question and answer elicited by the State in no way shed any light on that subject. The error was compounded on original submission by the broad statement that appellant’s question “would even have authorized the witness to relate the oral confession.” 1
*865Therefore, having concluded that Art. 38.24, supra, has no application to this ground, that portion of the original majority opinion relying upon this article as authority for disposing of the appellant’s first ground of error should be overruled.
Further, I cannot conclude that the reference to the oral confession would constitute harmless error because of the presence of the written confession. As has been pointed out, the very subject in question here was the voluntariness of the written confession, and the jury had before it evidence of coercion. Certainly, reference to an oral confession would logically serve to bolster the credibility of that written instrument in the minds of the jurors.
Despite this, I cannot conclude that the cause must be reversed on this point, since the record contains at least one other reference to the oral confession, a reference which was not objected to by defense counsel. A polygraph examiner was testifying and the following occurred:
[Questioning by the prosecutor]
“Q After you left, did anyone contact you?
“A Yes, sir, Mr. Canty [another polygraph examiner] called me at the Chariott Inn and told me that Patterson [appellant] had orally admitted.”
No objection was voiced to this examination. Thus, I conclude that since substantially the same testimony came into evidence without objection, reversible error is not shown.
I would deny appellant’s motion for rehearing, but overrule the original majority opinion to the extent it relied upon Art. 38.24, supra.
ODOM, J., joins this opinion.

. The State, obviously recognizing the impropriety of the question the prosecutor posed, immediately asked that the question be withdrawn.