Court Opinion

ID: 9681294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:47:35.930397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:33.095384
License: Public Domain

on appellant’s motion for rehearing.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
In our original disposition of this case we stated at some length what we understood to be the undisputed facts touching the admissibility of the confession as against the contention that it was not freely or voluntarily made.
At appellant’s insistence, the facts have been examined again, in line with that contention.
Along with the trial of the case, the trial court, in keeping with the approved procedure in this state relative to the voluntariness of a confession in a criminal case, submitted that issue to the jury for their determination. The jury’s conclusion of *511guilt constituted a finding that the confession was not illegally obtained and that its admission in evidence was not erroneous.
The undisputed evidence fails to show that the confession was illegally obtained, under the laws of this state.
In addition to a determination of the admissibility of the confession under the laws of this state, it becomes the duty of this court to determine the admissibility thereof under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.
In Prince v. State, 155 Tex. Cr. R. 108, 231 S. W. 2d 419, we called attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States wherein, upon the undisputed facts presented in each of those cases, that court reached the conclusion that the confessions there used in evidence against the accuseds offended against the guarantee of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
It would unduly lengthen this opinion to discuss these decisions in detail. Suffice it to say that we are aware of no decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that would authorize our conclusion that said court would hold the confession in the instant case violative of due process.
We remain convinced of the admissibility in evidence of the confession of appellant.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.