Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

26 Tex. Ct. App. 308

Brown v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 31, 1888

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1888-10-31

Tried below be» fore the Hon. N. G. Kittrell. The conviction in this case was for burglary, and the penalty-assessed against the appellant was a term of eight years in the penitentiary. • J. B. Holland was the first witness for the State. He testified that he lived at Riverside, in Walker county, Texas, and was owner and proprietor of the store for the burglary of which the defendant was on trial.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-10-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1940

2 state decisions

101888189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Willson, Judge.

¶1It is clear that, at the time the defendant made the confession admitted in evidence against him, he was under restraint. It is also clear that he did not make said confession voluntarily, but that it was extorted from him by means •of violence inflicted on his person; but it further appears from *314the evidence that, at the time of making said confession, he also made a statement of facts and circumstances which were found to be true, and which conduced to establish his guilt of the burglary charged against him. He stated where a portion of the stolen property was secreted, and this statement was found to be true, and by means thereof said property was discovered.

Opinion delivered October 31, 1888.

¶2Under article 750, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as construed by the Supreme Court and by this court, such corroboration of a confession renders the confession admissible in evidence against the defendant although it may have been obtained by compulsion or persuasion. (Warren v. The State, 29 Texas, 370; Selvidge v. The State, 30 Texas, 60; Strait v. The State, 43 Texas, 486; Weller v. The State, 16 Texas Ct. App., 200.) Such being the law, the court did not err in admitting the confession of the defendant in evidence against him. Hor do we perceive any error in the charge of the court relating to the subject of the confession.

¶3It is contended by counsel for the defendant that this construction of article 750 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes said article violative of section 10, article 1 of the Constitution of this State, in that it would compel a defendant to give evidence against himself. We do not understand this constitutional provision to be applicable to the case. If it had been sought to compel the defendant, as a witness, upon the trial of his cause, to give evidence against himself, said provision would protect him; but it can not be reasonably held, we'think, that said provision extends its protection to the defendant so as to render inadmissible against him his involuntary declarations or acts, which would otherwise be admissible.

¶4We find no error in the conviction, and the judgment is affirmed.

¶5Affirmed.

/26/texctapp/308 · .json · Public domain