*1 professional regular at its on a basis
customary rate. proof of recognize that
We may usually must
conspiracy be, and evidence, Jernigan circumstantial Wainer, vital (1854),
v. Tex. 189 proved
facts not be unreasonable and circum
inferences from facts other stances, “No and “Insufficient Evidence” or, 363;
Evidence”, 38 Texas L.Rev. court, a vital
as has often been said infer by piling may not be
fact established inference, upon would be
ence Bullard, 154
in this case. Rounsaville Lobley (1955);
Tex.
(1951). permit proof To Irvine, the rule of
would violate Joske (1898), 91 Tex. 44 S.W. evi fact
requires proof of vital more than something amounting to
dence
mere scintilla. court of civil judgment of the
The judgment of
peals is reversed and
trial court is affirmed.
REAVLEY, sitting. J., not GASTON, Appellant,
John Paul Texas, Appellee.
The STATE of Appeals of Texas. of Criminal Goodman, Goodman, Hall-
Robert E. appellant. mark, Beard, El Hoy & *2 Thereafter given proper warnings. the Atty., Edward S. Dist. Boling, Barton the was taken from and written confession Atty., El Dist. Marquez, Asst. at m. pellant commencing for 9:37 a. Vollers, Atty., Austin, State’s D. B. Jim in the аppellant day signed same and the State. a. m. at 10:45 presence of two witnesses OPINION (a) that of Appеllant concedes Section V.A.C.C.P., 1965, 38.22, in effect Article ONION, Judge. confession, complied was at time of Leg., Ch. fully. Aсts with See rob; intent to is assault with The offense Article 1732,1752, 41.2 also pp. Sec. jury, assessed punishment, Never 38.22, as amended 1967. Sec. Depart- in the Texas years’ confinement testimony is theless, his appellant contends ment Corrections. of by the fact that supported indirectly challenge the suffi- Appellant not does the amоunt reflect warrant issued did not this con- to sustain ciency of the evidence bail, customary permitted, if was of commencing resulting a trial viction from appellant was held with procedure and that therefore, We, deem December on September until out bail from June unnecessary the facts. it to set forth This, urges, he he wаs indicted. when of demonstrates involuntariness appellant error con- In his first Article V.A.C.C.P. confession. See his аdmitting tends the trial court erred ob- over written confession into evidence attorney, could Judge Windberg, an jection was not volun- since such confession appellant as to the having recall advised inadmissible tarily and was therefore made punishment the offense maximum a matter law. in appellant but denied charged was either penalty that the be forming him could his own primarily His claim is based on testified Appellant death. himsеlf life or testimony jury’s at a in the absence custody him in that the officers who had admissibility the voluntariness and to induce his any promises did make after he was the confession. He related that support in any find confession. Wе do not * * * he “brought back from California” the record for contention the Peace appeаred twice before Justice con made a testimony thought that he if he testified, time, he Windberg. The first the chair.” perhaps “beat fession he would merely “You are magistrate told him separate hearing of the At the сonclusion rob. On charged with assault with intent to had that the confession judge stated in- you charge, denying I’m bail” and аppel voluntarily that given been punishable him the offense was formed intelligent “an waiver” lant had made timе, appears it from death. The second therewith. rights connection testimony magistrate gave Ground of warnings Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. complains that appellant Next order, at such evidence offered failed enter аn follow
The State’s trial court was only appellant separate hearing, stating reflects its find ing the voluntary. It time on magistrate taken before the one that the confession was ings file appears, though, at а. m. and that that the trial court did 9:15 June appellant subsequent confession reflects to the effective dаte Where the trial alleged provisions offense. Act shall fled after the this Act. The admissibility of not affect thе confessions prior Saving the effective date of the 2. “Sec. Clause 41— 1.14, V.A.C.C.P., “Any time See Article note. admissible at the Act.” confession at shall be admissible it was made appellant m the record after the voluntаriness of ad- appellate First, filed his brief the trial court as mitted. we note that no evidence required by rаising the V.A. issue voluntariness was of- C.C.P., second, complaining such failure. fered before the objection spеcial requested charge nor *3 It is observed that at the conclusion of accordance with Articles 36.14 separate its court dictated V.A.C.C.P., made. findings into the record with unmistakable clarity satisfy so as to Ground of еrror constitutional requirements Denno, 378 U.S. Jackson error, judgment Finding reversible 368, 1774, 12 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 908. See affirmed. is 538, 639, Sims Georgia, S.Ct. U.S. 593; Lopеz State, 17 L.Ed.2d Tex.Cr.
App.,
“If voluntarily made the con been found have been I in the affirmance of concur viction, as a mаtter of law ground held admissible and fact that-in Charles court further observe No. would denied, enter an or- State, absence of the he shall cert. S.W.2d findings 921) der shall he stating (p. court stated hut among papers cause filеd not exhibited to the point has out that court we “Also there- jury. Only Art. 38.22 provision of held to such pertaining evidenсe after provided (1965), which (b) V.A.C.C.P. ” ** * jury matter be to the submitted stating his an order enter court (emphasis supplied) decline mandatory and we findings, was so noted, however, that Article hold.” It is Leg., supra, was amended Acts August effective
p. ch. amendment, in at the effect Such trial, or eliminated
time of “Only there- the words
omitted use ” ** * 38.22, Sec. after.
V.A.C.C.P., 1967. obviously envisions amendment
Such parte practica- C. CLIFTON. findings as soon as Ex Claude filing time. certainly within reasonable ble and appellant that agree we While not filed as bar were in the case at Appeals Texas. Criminal been, fail to might we
timely they have harmed or appellant has been see how prejudiced. second part of his another In complains of the error, appellant jury gen instruct failure to
trial court’s to confessions pertaining law
erally proof as particular burden