Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

31 Tex. Crim. 276

20 S.W 459

Bell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided November 19, 1892

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1892-11-19

Tried below before Hon. W. J. Graham. Appellant was indicted for the theft of property over the value of $20, to-wit, a watch and chain valued at $27.50, this being the aggregate value. At the trial he was found guilty and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary. The evidence established that the watch and chain were taken from the possession of O. M. Lawrence, as alleged in the indictment.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-11-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1978

10 state decisions

30189219001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

SIMKINS, Judge.

¶1 Appellant was convicted of the theft of property over $20 in value, and sentenced to two years in the penitentiary, from which judgment he appeals to this court.

¶2 1. The application for a continuance having been overruled by the court, and no bill of exception taken thereto, it can .not be considered. Willson’s Crim. Stats., sec. 2187.

¶3 2. Appellant complains that the sheriff was allowed to testify as to confession of guilt made by him while under arrest.

¶4 The evidence shows that defendant made a statement to the sheriff to the effect that he had taken the watch and chain from the bureau of his employer. Upon trial he took the stand and stated that he had found the watch and chain in the road. The facts further show, that after the statement was made to the sheriff, that officer told him that his statement could be used against him, if he made it. After being warned appellant declared his statement to be true. The court admitted the evidence. We are of the opinion that there was no error; it was admissible on two grounds, as a confession and as impeaching testimony. Ferguson’s case, ante, p. 93.

¶5 3. The same rule applies to the objection made to the testimony of Bird Mays. While defendant, by refusing to testify, can avail himself of all the safeguards the law threw around one whose lips were sealed under the policy of the common law,' yet when defendant takes the stand and makes himself a witness in his own behalf, he, under the doctrine of the Meuly case (ante, p. 155), places himself on the plane of any other witness, and subject to impeachment in the same manner.

¶6 4. Defendant complains of the action of the court in requiring the attorney to proceed with the trial of this case when the attorney was engaged, with others, in the conduct of another criminal case before a special judge sitting in the same court. We can readily see how the defendant in the case on trial before the special judge can complain of the injury to his cause, if any was done, but do not understand how the defendant in the case at bar can complain, who had the benefit of the counsel’s services.

¶7 There are no other questions raised that need be considered in the case, and the judgment is affirmed.

¶8 Affirmed.

¶9 Judges all present and concurring.

/31/texcrim/276 · .json · Public domain