Dover v. State

<p>1. — Theft—Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where upon trial of theft under the value of $50, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, although conflicting, there was no reversible error,</p> <p>3. — Same—Hearsay Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of misdemeanor theft, the State introduced testimony which was clearly hearsay, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.</p> <p>3. —Same—Confessions—Exculpatory Statements.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of misdemeanor theft, the State was permitted to introduce in evidence the statements of the defendant while he was under arrest without warning, with reference as to how he came into possession of the property, the same was reversible error, although said confession was deemed by t'he State to be an exculpatory statement. Following Bailey v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 150, and other cases. Prendergast, Judge, dissenting.</p> <p>4. —Same—Buie Stated — Confessions—Inculpatory Statements.</p> <p>A confession or admission of an inculpatory fact by defendant, where he is under arrest and unwarned, can not be used as evidence against him and comes within the statutory rule as to confessions, although the same may not be technically a confession or admission. Following Herman v. State, 42 Texas Crim. Rep., 464. Prendergast, Judge, dissenting.</p>