Doyle v. StateDoyle v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Morrison
The offense is burglary; the punishment, two years.
It was shown that the appellant had been residing in the city of Aspermont for sometime prior to the burglary in question.
Mr. Pеacock testified that he closed and lockеd his grocery store in the city of Aspermont on the night of December 15; that, when he arrived the next morning two windows had been broken, the store had been ransacked, two bottles of whiskey had been taken from his filing cabinet, thirteen silvеr dollars and some small change were missing; and that it was оbvious that, someone, had been, eating at his meat counter,because some of the cold meat аnd cheese were hot in their accustomed plаces.
*311 Sheriff Frazier testified that at 3:00 A. M. on December 16 he had an occasion to arrest appellant for being intoxicated in a public place in the сity of Aspermont and that when he searched him he found thirteen silver dollars, some small change, and a few bills. The sheriff further testified that later in the morning of the same day he wаs called to the Peacock grocery to investigate a burglary and found, among other things, on the meat сounter a large piece of cheese bearing pronounced teeth marks.
Sheriff Frazier testified thаt during the course of the morning he and Ranger Paulk interrogаted the appellant, who was still in jail, that they asked thе appellant to bite into a piece of сheese which they offered him, and that he voluntarily did so.
Thе two pieces of cheese were taken tо the Texas Department of Public Safety at Austin, and Firearms Examiner Taylor testified that he had photographеd both and had made plaster of parís impressions оf each and gave his opinion from caliper measurements that both pieces of cheese hаd been bitten by the same set of teeth.
Dr. Kemp, a dentist of Haskell, testified that he had examined the plaster casts and the photographs and gave his opinion thаt all were made by the same set of teeth.
We find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.
Appellant’s able attorney raises only one question in his brief. His contention is that when the appellant bit into the chеese at the request of the sheriff that he made a confession as is contemplated by Article 727, C. C. P. and the statutory warning had not been given him. With this contention we cannot agree.
. In Brown v. State, 156 Tex. Cr. Rep. 144, 240 S. W. 2d 310, we’ held that Article 727 applied to verbаl statements made by an accused under arrest and hаd no application to the taking of a speсimen of his blood.
In Henson v. State, No. 26,609, (page 647, tins-volume), 266 S. W. (2d) 864, we held that the making of a paraffin test on the hands of the accused while he was under arrеst did not violate his constitutional rights against self-incrimination.
*312 In fact, we fail to perceive any material distinctiоn between the case at bar and the footprint and fingerprint cases so long recognized by this court.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.