Court Opinion

ID: 9680604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:34:59.466215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.587991
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
In his motion for rehearing, error is urged by appellant, for the first time, to the court’s action in permitting the state’s witness, Jimmy Christian, to relate certain statements made by appellant after he and his companions were apprehended on the football field.
Over appellant’s objection that he was under arrest when the statements were made, the witness was permitted to testify that appellant told him where to find one of the chisels used in the assault and he also said “that they wanted to kill Mr. *449Golden and go to the penitentiary.”
We perceive no error in the admission of the testimony.
Appellant’s statement which led to the recovery of one of the weapons used in the crime was admissible as an oral confession, under Art. 727, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., which was in force and effect at the time of the trial. Edmond v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 637, 336 S.W.2d 946.
The statement of appellant that he and his companions wanted to kill Golden was also admissible as a part of the oral confession. Smith v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 614, 317 S.W.2d 539; Riley v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 41, 328 S.W.2d 306.
Art. 38.22 of the 1965 Code of Criminal Procedure, governing confessions of an accused, has no application to the admission of appellant’s oral confession in evidence at a trial held prior to January 1,1966, the effective date of the present code.
The record does not reflect a denial of due process of law to appellant, under the United States Constitution, in admitting the oral confession in evidence.
We have again reviewed the record in the light of appellant’s contention that the reference to him and his companions, in the testimony, as “Spanish boys” deprived him of a fair and impartial trial and due process of law, and remain convinced that no reversible error is presented. As pointed out in our original opinion, there were no objections to the questions and answers which referred to appellant and his companions as being of the Spanish race. The voice inflection or manner of speech referred to by counsel is of course not reflected in the writing which constitutes the record on appeal. There is no showing of any bad faith on the part of either state’s counsel or the witness in referring to appellant’s race or national origin.
Remaining convinced that a proper disposition was made of the case on original submission, the motion is overruled.