O'Connell v. State

Citations

• 10 Tex. Ct. App. 567

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence.—When a prisoner, having been examined as a witness in a prosecution against another person, has answered questions to which he might have demurred as tending to criminate himself, his answers are deemed voluntary, and as such may be subsequently used against him for ah purposes.</p> <p>2. Same—Examining Tbial.—Testimony taken on an examining trial before a magistrate is required by the Code to be reduced to writing, signed by the witness and certified by the officer. And where this is required the law presumes that the magistrate performed his duty; and if he did, paroi evidence of what the witness said cannot be received.</p> <p>3. Same.-—But if it be'shown that the evidence was not reduced to writing, or if the written examination, by reason of irregularity, is wholly inadmissible, paroi evidence of what was disclosed is admissible. If uncertain whether or not it was reduced to writing, the presumption that the officer discharged his whole duty obtains, and paroi evidence will be rejected.</p> <p>4 Confessions.—No statement made by a party while in jail or legal custody is competent evidence against him, even as a mere link in a chain of evidence, unless it was voluntarily made before an examining court, or was voluntarily made after caution that it might be used against him, or unless, in connection therewith, he made statement of facts and circumstances found to be true, and which tend to establish his guilt. And it is immaterial that the offense for which he is in custody when he made the statement was a different offense than that on the trial for which it is offered in evidence.</p> <p>8. Same. — Only such parts of the voluntary confession of an uncautioned prisoner as relate to verified disclosures are admissible against him. Other facts, though part of the same confession, are not. See the opinion for an application of these rules to this case.</p>