Court Opinion

ID: 9772056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:06:13.894457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:41.917111
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge,
dissenting.
Assuming that statements in the confession were exculpatory, Judge Daily’s dissenting opinion is correct, but his footnote 1, which states that the State should not be allowed to introduce only a part of a defendant’s statement, is too broad. Parts of a defendant’s statement or confession may be inadmissible and should not be admitted. We still have the rule adopted by the Legislature that would prevent a distorted version by the introduction of a part of a confession by the State. Article 38.24, V.A. C.C.P., Part of an act, declaration, conversation or writing, provides:
“When part of an act, declaration or conversation or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by the other, as when a letter is read, all letters on the same subject between the same parties may be given... . ”
The judgment should be affirmed.