Court Opinion

ID: 9760094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:40:23.615357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:08.258364
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge,
(dissenting).
Officer Parkey, having testified that appellant made an oral confession of the burglary of the filling station, was permitted to testify further: “He said that they took the rifle, and were looking for some more jobs; that they wanted to pull some robberies,” and “He said that they were looking for some rifles and guns to commit other robberies.”
His reason for taking the rifle was not a disconnected, independent or extraneous transaction or crime, but an explanation of why a rifle and not other property was taken in the burglary. The authorities dealing with disconnected extraneous crimes are not applicable.
Also, I cannot agree that appellant’s explanation that they were looking for some more jobs and wanted to pull some robberies constituted the substantive crime of conspiracy to commit the crime of burglary or the crime of robbery.
Officer Parkey was not a party to the stipulation in the companion case and the stipulation was not admissible to impeach his testimony under which appellant’s confession was clearly admissible.
Nor can I agree that the stipulation in the companion case destroyed appellant’s confession.
Callas v. State, 167 Texas Cr. Rep. 375, 320 S.W. 2d 360, *191might well apply if the conviction of appellant’s companion Burns was under attack. It has no application here.
I respectfully dissent.