*1 regarding determina- committee’s consultation with an committee its faith; plaintiff’s employment is not evidence the con- that was termi- of bad tion conduct, trary, procedure. by it was a nated wise cautious reason of dishonest we Having opinion, attorney’s received hold that under terms of the instrument governing sharing plan to dis- such de- profit committee then a choice—either agree parties attorney’s opinion with the or to termination was conclusive as to all agree request plaintiff’s plaintiff’s and refuse committee’s denial of $16,256.18. proper. for the chose claim was The committee alternative; nevertheless, the latter it was judgment of the Court of Civil the decision of the ulti- committee which peals affirming the trial court’s judgment mately determined plaintiff guilty that as to defendant Neuhoff Bros. is Packers dishonesty. left undisturbed. judgment Court of Appeals Civil as defendants- to Neuhoff O. testified as follows: Joe petitioners Manage- Neuhoff Packers Bros. “Q. you [your Did discuss at- Corp. ment Republic National Bank of torney’s any opinion] member other Dallas (trustee) is judg- reversed and the your writing committee to to ment of the trial court [plaintiff] Mr. Wilson ? Yes, my opinion showed the “A. Henry
brother was member [who
the committee].
“Q. you And did reach conclusion be- PARSLEY, Appellant, Francis Marshall you you tween the two of as to what should do? Texas, Appellee. STATE of
“A. did.We “Q. And what was that decision? Court of Criminal * * * did not “A. Wilson Joe March Profit any coming
have share out of the Sharing Plan.” Rehearing May 27, Denied Having dishonesty, the committee found deny plaintiff’s then had but to no choice payment governing because the clearly payment forbids
instrument by discharged rea-
employee who has been
son of dishonest conduct.
Regarding failure the committee’s hearing plaintiff,
to hold a we hold
such failure was of a lack of not evidence faith,
good plaintiff especially ad since
mitted the held the committee conduct
be dishonest and since there is evidence no plaintiff requested hearing. such a Long Telephone v. Southwestern Bell
Co., 442 (Tex.Civ.App.1969) S.W.2d 462 ref’d,
writ N.R.E.
Having concluded that there no evi- good
dence of a lack faith on the
476 stopped gone after he had
lanes. He was The officers who were two blocks. four intoxicated. present testified that he was grounds comply Two of error 40.09, Ann.C.C.P., Article Sec. Vernon’s have been Complaint is trial made the court erred in made admitting a statement by appellant he while under arrest and was not in warned accordance Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 16 L. 86 S.Ct. Ed.2d 694. Quirl
Officer testified that within three or four minutes' after the automobile had stopped been and after the arrest was appellant made the stated that had had he several beers. The trial court overruled jury that the be instructed not to consider the statement. holding err in trial court did not was admissible for there
that the statement
showing that the
sufficient
was
38.22,
1(f),
gestae.
Sec.
was
Article
V.A.C.C.P.,
“Nothing
provides,
part:
in
Colvin,
Dallas,
Jr.,
appeal
Emmett
admis
preclude
herein
the
contained
shall
only,
appellant.
for
* * *
sibility
of
that is
any statement
Tolle,
Henry Wade,
Atty.,
Dist.
B.
John
gestae
of the offense.”
the res
Elliott,
Hoyt
Camille
Yett and
Charles
State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.
Moore v.
Pilkilton,
Dallas,
Attys.,
Asst.
and
Dist.
643, and
Tex.Cr.
Ramos v.
W.2d
Vollers,
Austin, for
Atty.,
D.
State’s
Jim
&
In McCormick
App.,
pened to be The officers block. per that the trial court erred contended appellant drive down the street with appellant prosecutor question mitting the weaving two traffic automobile across why penalty trial as there was no evidence at stage at the the time of its all prior he did not include convictions admission show that the statement was spontaneous. light In subsequent exhibit which been testimony, probation. application appellant, of his fact that tes behalf, tifying in his own related he had statement, signed by appellant, arrest, several beers to his no error showed that *3 driving while intoxicated in March of 1963 County in the Criminal Court of Dallas MORRISON, J., joins in this concur- County punishment a and was assessed rence. days three and a fine $100.
pellant testified signed that he had Appellant
statement. admitted the following offenses: driving 21,
(1) while intoxicated on March
1964; carrying (2) person on or about his 1964; pistol August 4, on (3)
motor on road while his li- 21, 1964; suspended August cense was on parte Ex S. Robert FRANK. being disorderly July drunk and (4) 1963; being (5) disorderly drunk September Court Criminal Appellant testified that he had not read May 6, 1970. convictions be-
fore signing it and that
the mistake.
There was no objection this testimo-
ny; nothing presented for review. Or-
dinarily there objection must be an to the
testimony present appeal. matter on 5 Tex.Jur.2d,
See p.
There being no reversible error present,
the judgment is
ONION, Judge (concurring).
I concur the result This reached.
court has held appli that Miranda has no
cation to statements which State, Hill Tex.Cr. v. offense. 408;
App., State, 420 S.W.2d v. Tex. Brown
Cr.App., 828; 437 S.W.2d Hernandez Cf. Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 831.
would, however, myself disassociate from
any impression majority opinion might
leave that time is the controlling factor or
only factor to be considered determining
the admissibility of res gestae statements. statement made appellant was as a
result interrogation of an after arrest and