Court Opinion

ID: 9667062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:34:13.200838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:34.570369
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant complains because in our original opinion we referred to appellant’s confession as evidence that the burglary had been committed at night.
Appellant’s contention seems to be that, since another trial court in another case had held the confession of appellant inadmissible, it became thereafter inadmissible in all courts. It is rudimentary that courts are not bound by the decisions of other courts of equal jurisdiction. The power to establish precedent is lodged in courts of superior jurisdiction.
In the case at bar, the jury evidently found appellant’s confession to have been voluntarily made.
Appellant further complains because our original opinion was predicated upon Dimery v. State (Page 197 of this volume), 240 S. W. (2d) 293, which case, he says, is not based upon sound principles of law. Since the opinion of this court in the Dimery case, the rule there announced has been approved by the Supreme Court of the United States in Gallegos vs. Nebraska. (72 S. Ct. 141.) Therein, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a confesison is not vitiated alone because of the failure to take the accused before a magistrate.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.