Court Opinion

ID: 9770464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:05:48.795875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:17.509895
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing.
WOODLEY, Judge.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is addressed solely to the contention that the confession was inadmissible as a matter of law and should not have been admitted.
In addition to what we said upon that question in our original opinion, we observe the following:
The sole complaint as to the confession is raised by Bill of Exception No. 4. This bill complains of the overruling of appellant’s motion to suppress the confession and the court’s action in admitting it in evidence over his objection.
Bill of Exception No. 4 reveals that appellant filed a motion to suppress the confession and when the confession was offered in evidence, the jury was withdrawn and the court heard evidence on the question of its admissibility.
The state’s witness testified that the statutory warning was given and that appellant signed this confession in the sheriff’s temporary headquarters, in his presence and in the presence of District Attorney Scott, Ted Walsh, J. R. Cook and A. C. Martindale.
*431Appellant then took the stand and denied that he signed the confession offered in evidence. He testified that he signed another paper on which the name of his co-defendant appeared, but not that offered by the state. Also he denied signing any paper on January 11th, the date of the confession offered by the state, and said that it was January 7, 1953, that he signed his name to a paper on which Maurice Sampson’s name appeared.
Appellant also testified in the absence of the jury that he went to the high seventh grade in school; was 18 years of age, and that he understood all of the words in the confession offered by the state.
This was the testimony before the court when he came to rule upon whether the confession should be admitted before the jury or should be suppressed.
The motion to suppress was no more than a pleading and under our practice may at most be considered as the grounds for objection to the admissibility of the evidence offered.
The trial court was correct in admitting the confession in evidence, reserving for the jury the issue as to whether it was-voluntarily made and signed by appellant, as testified by the state’s witnesses, or it was not, as claimed by appellant. There are no objections to the court’s charge.
We remain convinced that Bill of Exception No. 4 shows no reversible error.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.