Court Opinion

ID: 9661632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:45:18.441992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:31.611902
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
Appellant's motion for rehearing complains that this court erred in failing to rule that the written statement made by appellant, which we held was not admissible as res gestae, was admissible on the ground that a portion of said statement was introduced by the state and used against him, thus rendering the entire statement admissible.
Sgt. Glen Davees was the officer who testified that appellant entered the police station shortly after 2:00 P.M. and told him he had just shot a man and surrendered the pistol.
The statement which appellant sought to introduce was made to Lieutenant Bob Parsons and was reduced to writing and signed by appellant at 3:15 P.M.
The record does not reflect that Sgt. Glen Davees was present or heard the statement or the self-serving or exculpatory portion of the statement in writing which appellant contends was admissible as a portion of the statement made to him when appellant entered the police station, and no witness is shown to have heard both the statement made by appellant to Sgt. Davees and the self-serving or exculpatory statement contained in the written statement made to Lieutenant Parsons.
The facts stated distinguish this case from Sanderson v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 3 S.W.2d 453, Avirett v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 647, 84 S.W.2d 482, and Pratt v. State, 53 Tex.Cr.R. 281, 109 S.W. 138, cited by appellant.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.