Court Opinion

ID: 3913135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 09:41:29.105264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:32.011267
License: Public Domain

Appellant insists that in the original opinion the inhibition against the receipt in evidence of a declaration of the accused while under arrest in the absence of compliance with the confession statute (Art. 727, C. C. P., 1925) was violated, and cites Hext v. State, 282 S.W. 242, and precedents to which reference is made therein. The authorities cited are to the effect that the state, upon its own initiative, may not use against the accused declarations made while under arrest which are not res gestae, which are not rendered inadmissible by compliance with the terms of Art. 727, supra, and which are not embraced in the exceptions therein named. In the present instance, it was the appellant, and not the state, who introduced the declarations made by him while under arrest. He having done so, it was clearly the right of the State under Art. 728, C. C. P., to introduce the whole of his declaration made at the same time and upon the same subject. Such a construction of the statute is supported by the authorities cited in the original opinion, and also others collated in Vernon's Tex. C. C. P., 1925, Vol. 2, p. 840.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.