*1
¡re
county
entry
such min-
shall make
an
Appellant’s contention is
sult of
pror
papers and
original
utes
not
favor
election
first hibition of
it was
in the
therefore
inadmissible
such sale
minutes of the
until
Court,,
papers
entry
lost Commissioners’
original
shown
wére
and “an
thus
copy
or a
destroyed.
thereof certified under the
hand
seal
of the clerk of the court
of the 'Commis
original
The
minutes
prima
shall be
post
facie evidence of such
Court,
copies thereof,
sioners’
certified
ing.”
See Cook v.
Tex.Cr.R.
prove
are admissible as evidence to
,
firmed.
Opinion approved by the Court. HAWKINS, J.,P. absent. Rehearing Motion
On WHITE STATE. No. 24626. GRAVES, Judge. Appellant urges get that we failed Appeals Court of Criminal of Texas. gist objections of his to the Feb. 1950. County Qerk, wherein he read from certain Rehearing April 5, 1950. Denied minutes Commissioners’ Court Crosby County. It is the con- original papers
tention that the such minutes were the best evidence and
that secondary evidence relative to such admissible, original
orders not or- ders presept or their absence ac- are; counted for. We at a loss to under- objection, stand such unless it- means say original meeting notes of the of the Commissioners’ Court should have
been introduced herein as a basis of the minutes of such court. ,County
It is shown that Clerk testi custody fied that as such he had min utes of the Commissioners’ thereof, j) page turned to Volume
read therefrom an order such court. made-either, proof could have been themselves or minutes certified copies thereof. See Howard Johnson Tex.Cr.App., S.W, Hart v. Jones statute, Vernon’s Ann: 666— provides P.C., county judge *2 Nordyke, Chas. Stephenville, ap-
pellant. Cleveland, Sam Attorney, Steph- District enville, Russell, (Special Prosecutor) Sam Stephenville, Blackburn, George P. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State. GRAVES, Judge. charged principal as a Ross, offense the murder of Crockett was given penalty death, appeals. and he The indictment herein contains three counts, two submitted court; and the one submitted al- leged appellant, day on the 28th
January, did kill Ross by Crockett
shooting him gun. with a proven facts herein show date, 17-year- Bagwill, one Robert nephew ex-wife,
old boy appellant’s old, appellant, years and the a man 47 living together Wells; in Mineral ap- pellant Bagwill “make decided to some places”, meaning thereby go out and rob someone; appellant’s entered au- finally tomobile and came to County. They place in Erath suited them near the Tarlton State John College, station on a cor- ner thereto. They near drove around this then decided to hold it Appellant parked his car around north side the block which this filling located, station was got out, .38 caliber Police having a Positive Pistol him, while waited for water, to such away therein, waded order to take out re boy gone pistol. covered robbery. "was car after the We think 'this testi mony in Mr. about an and was seen Ross’ admissible hour C. under C.P., him. phrase who identified under the witnesses therein that *3 “unless in1 Finally the car and confession, came back to connection with said he makes appellant he to shoot statements told that circum facts or stances true, had at- that filling station who are man found to which be pulled n conduce to guilt, him with hammer when tacked establish his such as a money; that he gun property, demanded the stolen secreted and snapped when it instrument gun six with shot times and which-he states the of was, Bag- on fense empty; man fell was over committed.” objection The to oral this pushed then rifled the him off and statement will recites that same was and, pocket- made appellant cash drawer took man’s under fear and not when was in pocket; they possession out of his that then book of his facul Bagwill’s to ties make voluntary statement, drove back to a Mineral Wells. and blood, no overcoat was covered with well information. as was going to what happen appellant to shoes, and as his clothes to him. The "trial cor and court was rect in they up got allowing burned them when by ap home. the statement made pellant something ob- at such There was over time as follows: $300.00 robbery, appellant got tained in this and said, “Dan White he and Robert had They soon start- around thereof. $100.00 planned to go pull to and a Texas, Oklahoma, Jacksboro, to and at ed highjacking, burglarize something; that they bought paper a and that Mr. learned something, they steal stopped said and some was Ross dead. place at a something cross roads or and from a written foregoing is taken .got gasoline some and on then went to by appellant which was statement Stephenville, they and as soon as got to in evidence. introduced Stephenville they looking drove around this homi- A futher statement place highjack and came across orally appellant was taken from cide filling by By college. this out attempted to that which he stated reason of what Dan White me there told destroy pistol with Mr. Ross time, at the and where me he carried it battering same that by shot so was we did find the gun with which appellant recognizable; would not be (Crockett Robert Bagwill- Ross) had been pistol same then took such threw the killed pool of water some distance out from into Bill No. following por relates to the Later, company with Mineral Wells. tion of such oral statement as testified to officers, pool, appellant went to such some Suttle, by officer, peace Mr. Vernon, pis- soon waded out therein and Texas; by appellant: “They told him tol it shown that certain from which was picked filling drove around oüt this sta fired, coming had been some of them bullets college by out tion drove it two body, and one out Mr. Ross’ out of the times saw or three this fellow Ross filling wall of the station. a good place and decided would be trial court’s own mo- careful Upon the they parked around 7:00 somewhere change on a was moved this cause tion opposite side of the block and County, and think Pinto Palo venue to got gun out with left' Dan at and. this justi- in such motion statement court’s opposite on the side of the block change. fied such (Interruptions station. from Exceptions 46). arguments, see SF & He relates to said Rob Bill time; gone a long oral don’t statement made ert was remember the admission an long; and after arrest which he how awhile came run under appellant while told pistol the officers these officers a hole of that he water, had thrown this and in directed company them ning [*] the car [*] back, Robert [*] f Ü said, came T had to running kill back to .1(38 ' (cid:127) objected.to my because this statement own free will was This statement voluntarily I knowing have alleged further' did not against all knowing the above- and" it could be used the latitude- allowed exceeded C.C.P., I trip that me Oklahoma quoted portion but trial. On the just picked up caught been thereunder, knew I be statement should would only portion but I wasn’t until I was arrested admissible to render
held
divulging
Sunday.”
where
last
which related to
thereof
secreted,
pistol
not to further
argument
Bill No. 4 relates to the
happened at
what had
details relative
Russell, Special
the Honorable Sam
alleged
hold
Prosecutor,
testi
wherein
likened
*4
confession,
mony
in
in this
found in the
otherwise
case to the tale
Where
Dickens,
admissible,
book,
by
conduce
contains facts which
“Oliver Twist”
where
Fagin
the
guilt,
alleged
one
have
to establish one’s
such
was
trained
boys
thievery.
young
the offense
of the
with which
in certain acts of
instrument
committed,
such
bill
qualified
the
state This
is
court to show
'was
whole of
the
State,
objection
argu
See Warren v.
that no
such
is admissible.
was made to
ment
369,
State,
made,
370; Selvidge v.
30 ment at
29
the
it was
and the first
Tex.
time
60;
State, 2 Tex.App.
anything
Walker v.
time
was
the
Tex.
known to
made
200;
State,
Tex.App.
326;
16
court concerning
Weller v.
the
was
same
when
State,
38;
Tex.App.
presented
v.
O’Connell was
Walker
9
bill
to the trial court for its
State,
567;
1949,
Tex.App.
Massey
approval
v.
on
day
August,
10
the 10th
v.
trial,
State,
Tex.App. 645.
also Smith v.
having
May
10
See
the
herein
concluded on
774;
123,
17,
State,
1949. Appellant
objected
34
29 S.W.
have
should
279,
State,
argument,
therewith,
v.
34 Tex.Cr.R.
30
such
Spearman
if dissatisfied
229;
State, 34
v.
Tex.Cr
at the time
Williams
it was
See
v.
S.W.
made.
Salinas
669;
State,
State,
663;
327,
142,
Go wans v.
64
30
113
.R.
S.W.
18 S.W.2d
401,
State,
616,
carry Bagwill away after the offense Appellant’s motion rehearing is companion Bag- safety of so secure the therefore overruled. will. Opinion approved by the court away, thereafter carry He did clothing shoes of burned after clothing, his own all as well in the informed
had been robbery, planned he had execution their took thereafter Also shot man. gun loot, hid part of the and he occurred. shooting knowing that killing, Appellant, very of the parte BLAND. Ex ready one of the doing do and was 24799. planned him to in furtherance things do awaiting purpose, of their Appeals Criminal of Texas. intended in completion the offense March away to companion safe- carry his order to April 19, 1950. Rehearing Denied safety by dis- ty, secure such further and to evidence—the posing the criminative *6 bloody clothing.
gun and the dur- by Bagwill was murdered Deceased and in furtherance existence ing Bag- design of common killing was deceased. will to rob the been, and should might have as of their contemplated as the result been, pistol. use of loaded design rob present the com sense offense mission statutes, Arts. “present” is used principals. defining 69, P.C., necessary that he be im- It was not Bagwill, or be so sit- with contact mediate eye him an to make uated present He was witness. ear hand, immediately at sense part of of his performance act, a conse- reasonable planned unlawful murder quence Ann.P.C., p. 347, Branch’s See victim. Tatum, Dallas, appellant. Bowen C. Hill v. Sec. S.W.2d 567, 121 George Blackburn, P. Atty., State’s Austin, for the State. properly charge, the court in- In his upon applicable the law structed HAWKINS, Presiding Judge. agree facts,- cannot and we 24,436, upon prin- Cause that the In the docket law of contention Court, relator, appellant, appealed application, court has no cipals from a conviction in the Dis- jury as to the law. to this misdirected