*1 paying you Every is fifteen man and woman billion dollars. per year the increase. Crimi- crime toll. crime is on Sex $120 nals, every you here, report docket.” of as have are on the Hardy Again, put B. B. it said: “The reasons he did not something stand, that we have shown —because Again: “Why morning. happened There he stands now.” girls prove let to assault other little did he not me he tried if he wanted to fair.” arguments complained of
The trial court certified that jury; supported were not were withdrawn from rights evidence; by any highly prejudicial of were anything reply defendant’s and not said defendant counsel. holdings court and the of the certificate of the trial Under 1101, State, (2d) Money this in the cases of v. 71 S. Court 983, (2d) we feel constrained and Rehm v. 78 S. W. nature, arouse In of this which tend to reverse this cause. cases great pres passions high pitch, care should be taken thereof, jury to a the discussion entation of the facts indignation prejudice improperly arouse the so as not to impartial an of and lead them from consideration trivial, matter, may apparently of the facts. prejudice Often discussion rights. Gazley v. 17 Texas the accused’s See 598; Cooper v. v. S. W. Crim. State, Garrett 424. 163 S. W. making case, disposition this we we are
In view of the unnecessary matters and discuss the other it to consider deem complained of. herein judgment is reversed and the cause of the trial court
remanded. Appeals foregoing has Commission Appeals Judges of Criminal Court been examined approved the Court. v. The State. Selanes Canedo January 5, No. 19252. Delivered 1938. Rehearing 3, March denied *2 states the case. Antonio, Patterson, C. L. of San for Lloyd Austin, Davidson, Attorney, of for State’s the State. Judge Appellant with was convicted of murder Krueger, . punishment death. malice and his was assessed at one, By exception appellant complains bill number be- permitted cause the in evidence his written State was offer the deceased that he killed which he confessed Appel- purpose getting money person. off his some objected lant introduction of said confession ground time; that his confes- under arrest at the du- voluntarily under not made was obtained sion was but ress, etc. there was offered
At the time the confession any the offi- mistreatment of was no evidence cers; Appellant consequently at time. it was admissible substance, whipped by subsequently that he was testified in notwith- said but officers until he made the standing was, officers, the confession such treatment substance, of how the homicide and correct statement true occurred. the writ- believed instructed the made, freely voluntarily by appellant was not statement
ten *3 by duress, they was induced threats that the same or if believed officers, they part if had a rea- upon of the or the or coercion pur- thereof, any they it for should not consider sonable doubt appellant plea entered a that inasmuch as pose. It to us occurs the same material facts guilty in substance to and testified court’s and in view of the in his as were contained legal rights appellant’s adequately jury, were the instruction to very however, insists, the was that confession protected. He jury may the have caused the infliction prejudicial and penalty. the death harmful, it though it was was not it that be conceded Even the testimony effect that he killed to the than his own more so if money; have killed him even he that he would deceased sake, don’t kill me.” up and said: “For God’s his hands had held Rep. 101 Texas Rueda v. Crim. In the case of if a defendant took the witness (658), held that this Court substantially in the same facts contained to stand and testified error, any, of the con if in the admission the his See, also, Mangum v. harmless. in evidence was fession (2d) Wells v. S. W. 126 Texas Crim. excluded, he the confession appellant desired to have If jury the the at time requested the court to retire should have testimony support objec- of his produced have and he should voluntarily freely made. that it was not the effect tion to objection with the mere contented himself not do so but He did grounds stated. three, four, two, appel- exception numbers By bills him, permit trial would not complains the because lant trial, prove by hearing a new to the a motion for upon attorney they the district jurors that heard who tried the case argument the closing say appellant had not told that in his the regarding Evelyn with connection whole truth Guckian’s give penalty it death offense; jury him the would that the jury story; should that the him tell the whole would force penalty the death example defendant and assess make an arriving penalty the death others; jury in at that the to deter argument into consideration. took said ground jury that the could objected thereto on the The State qualified said bills impeach The court not their verdict. de- appellant testified qualification in his stated Evelyn friend; him for whatever that he killed ceased was his investigation during going give him; Guckian throughout attorney and he talked to the district of this case just Evelyn he was protect as his did best conversation etc.; her, any doing now; information about withheld that he argument jury appellant in his to the con- that counsel for Evelyn; appellant tool in the hands of was a mere tended that gave appel- murderer; jury that if the the real that she was convicted; that she penalty, not death she could lant give penalty jury the death so hoped the him witness; objection was that no forever removed as would be attorney, argument and it was first of the district to the made by appellant motion for a new trial. complained of his position that takes the It to us that seems well, inquire court, into and deter- as should trial and this court as in their deliberation discussed mine all matters verdict; particular upon fact what at their how arrived *4 part and what of their verdict based or facts in evidence argument, any, they attorney’s took into consid- the district arriving penalty assessed. at the to be in eration consistently no to the rule that adhered courts have The juror will received of a be sworn statement affidavit or other it, verdict, upon explain or to show what impeach the to grounds Morgan rendered. See v. decision was their Rep. 424; Texas Rep. Randall v. Crim. Texas Crim. DeLong 290. It seems that 122 Texas Crim. v. cited, permit to im held that in the cases this Court contrary public policy, and we be was peach verdict its own are sound. decisions that such lieve record, judgment the of
Finding in the error no reversible is affirmed. trial court the Appeals has of foregoing opinion of the Commission Judges
been examined Appeals the of the Court of Criminal approved by and the Court.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING. Judge Appellant’s motion is a reiteration of the Graves, . grounds original herein, for a reversal in offered his brief and grounds gone original which have been over seriatim in our opinion herein. urgently He appellant’s insists that introduced evidence,
in duress, violence, was obtained the use of and and putting the in upon part fear of appellant his life the of County, sheriff of appellant Bexar so testifies. In such con- fession Daly, deceased, he admits that he intended to rob Mr. engaged physical difficulty deceased, that he in a with the pistol struggle and that Daly went off in the and Mr. thereby killed; intentionally try that he did not to kill him. In given testimony his on the trial he makes out a much more seri- against himself, original ous offense opinion. as is shown in the It light seems to us that his introduced of his plea guilty, of was much more beneficial to him than his testi- given mony at the time of his trial. We can see no error nor prejudice confession, guarded, to him in the introduction of such was, by proper as it instruction of the trial court. earnestly
It is appellant insisted impli- that since the has moving homicide, cated another as the cause in this he domination, claims to have acted under the advice and insistence person, testimony of such other whom the shows that he was protecting, granted motion this should be in order that —that person question properly punished. should be can see We only position. us, no force such haveWe this one case before person presented and a Daly who he killed Mr. admits for the money expected paid True, to be to him for such deed. says crime, he guilty complicity that another conceived and motivated the but such other, believed, if to would not militate guilt carrying lessen out of the com- plained judgment appellant probably on this result in going person punishment, the other free of nevertheless such helped. guilty gain- can not be That this is can not be ; instigator said matters relative to his adviser and sity will of neces- take
have to care themselves. *5 complained can see no error We of remarks of the letting attorney punishment relative to State’s in this cause enough committing severe order deter others from like purpose is the offenses. Such Penal Code and its enact- ments. say: object Article punish- the Penal Code “The suppress crime, ment is to and reform the offender.” Recognizing severity punishment, again of this we have reviewed exception, the facts and bills of and we see no reason change original thereon opinion. views as set forth in the regrettable committed, It is that such crimes are but when so committed, shows, one, and the record ap- as does this that the rights pellant safeguarded, has had his has, as this one we have no alternative but to allow the solemn verdict of a to be carried out.
The motion is therefore overruled. Spike Lane, alias Lane,
Russell v. The State. No. 19393. 3, Delivered March states the case. McCutcheon, Dallas, Currie
Lloyd Davidson, Attorney, Austin, State’s for the State. Judge Hawkins, robbery; punishment, . Conviction is for twenty years penitentiary.