Court Opinion

ID: 9767296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:16:05.708568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:30.226109
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
*6MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant urges us to reconsider his Bill of Exception No. 2 on the grounds that the statement made by appellant to the arresting officer was not a part of the res gestae. We have reexamined the bill and find the only grounds of objection set forth therein to be: “that the oral statements made by the defendant after he had been detained and stopped by the officers were made while under arrest and inadmissible”. It follows that the question of whether the statements were or were not a part of the res gestae was not before the trial court and therefore cannot be raised here.
On the question of statements made at the time of arrest, we recently had this to say in Clifton v. State, 156 Texas Crim. Rep., 655, 246 S. W. (2d) 201:
“However, for the purpose of clarification, it appears that appellant is laboring under the impression that no witness may be allowed to testify as to anything he observed subsequent to the moment of arrest. In this, he is mistaken. It has long been the holding of this Court that, Tf such acts or declarations were part of the res gestae they are admissible notwithstanding the fact that they may not be admissible as confessions or as admissions, for the rule of res gestae is independent of, superior to and cannot be limited by the rules relating to confessions or admissions after arrest.’ 18 Tex. Juris., Sec. 193, p. 313.”
Remaining convinced that our original disposition of this cause was correct, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.