Court Opinion

ID: 9675993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:11:40.611247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:42.371990
License: Public Domain

AMENDED OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
In an exhaustive brief on motion for rehearing appellant challenges the soundness of our original opinion on several grounds. Appellant challenges the authority of this Court to consider the belated finding of the trial court on the issue of the voluntariness of the confession. This Court has, since the rendition of the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Henry v. State of Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408, (January 18, 1965), adopted the practice which was approved in that case and has accepted such findings in four other cases.
Collins v. Beto, 5 Cir., 348 F.2d 823 (June 18, 1965), was not distinguished from the case at bar in our original opinion. We shall do so now.
1. In Collins neither this Court nor the United States Court of Appeals had before them a Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, finding by the trial court on the question of the voluntary nature of confession. In the case at bar we do have such a finding.
2. The decision of the majority in Collins was based on the involuntariness of Collins’ confession as a matter of law. The resolution of Collins’ claims with regard to Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441, was attempted only by Chief Judge Tuttle, whose opinion also found the confession to be involuntary. Viewed in this light, we do not find Collins determinative of the appellant’s claim under the exclusionary rule of Wong Sun.
3. After arrest, Collins was moved to an out of town jail in Humble where he was booked for vagrancy under the name of Joe Smith, although the officers admitted that they had no basis for such charge and knew his name was not Joe Smith. In the case at bar no groundless charge was filed against appellant under another name, nor was he incarcerated in any out of city jail with the exception of a brief stay of less than one hour in the police station at Bor-ger on the day that his truck was searched plus a visit to the Midland Department of Public Safety where he was given a polygraph test.
*6584. Both statements made by Collins were reduced to writing prior to his being taken before a magistrate. In the case at bar the confession which was introduced was taken from this appellant after he had been carried before a magistrate where bond had been set.
5. Collins had seen no relatives or friends prior to making either of his two confessions. This appellant had been visited in jail by friends and members of his family and had spoken to a lawyer before he made the confession which was introduced.
6. Collins was credited with an I. Q. in the lower ten percent of the population and with the mentality of a child. This appellant had succeeded exceptionally well as foreman of a pipeline crew according to the testimony of his employers, which would be indicative of a thorough awareness of what he was doing.
7. Collins’ two confessions followed a long period of questioning by teams of officers. Appellant had not been questioned at all for three days before the short period of interrogation which preceded the taking of the statement which was introduced in evidence. There was no evidence of undue pressure being applied to appellant at this time.
Originally we did not discuss eo nomine the question of whether the corpus delicti had been established. A most workable definition of the elements of the corpus delicti of a murder case in Texas may be found in Smith v. State of Texas, 5 Cir., 329 F.2d 498. We find such elements to have been established in the case at bar.
This case has received careful consideration by the members of this Court, and we remain convinced that it was properly decided originally.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
On Remand
BELCHER, Judge.
This is a conviction for murder; the punishment was assessed at twenty-five years.
The conviction was affirmed by this Court in Clewis v. State. However, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari; reversed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals with costs, and remanded the cause to this Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. (Clewis v. Texas, 386 U.S. -, 87 S.Ct. 1338, 18 L.Ed.2d 423.)
The opinion of the Supreme Court requires that appellant’s motion to reverse and remand this cause be granted.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.