Revised edition of White's Penal code Volume 2; embracing all penal legislation down to and including the acts of the Legislature of 1915, annotated ... Southwestern reporter, together with forms Buy on Amazon

https://www.ebooknetworking.net/books_detail-1231670541.html

Revised edition of White's Penal code Volume 2; embracing all penal legislation down to and including the acts of the Legislature of 1915, annotated ... Southwestern reporter, together with forms

AuthorTexas
61.44 USD
Buy New on Amazon 🇺🇸 Buy Used — $70.20

Usually ships in 24 hours

Book Details

Author(s)Texas
ISBN / ASIN1231670541
ISBN-139781231670545
AvailabilityUsually ships in 24 hours
Sales Rank99,999,999
MarketplaceUnited States  🇺🇸

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 Excerpt: ...parties had seen him take the goedfl. and that he Title XVII, Chap. 9. Art. 877, note 3H. would be prosecuted if he did not settle at onoe, which statement was untrue. but appellant, induced thereby, in order to stop prosecution, settled at a price below a felony theft, held, on a subsequent trial for felony, that the confession was not voluntary and should have been excluded. Cook v. St., 32 T. Cr. 27 (22 S. W. 23). A promise on the part of an accused to pay the owner for the alleged stolen property, although a circumstance that will tend to establish his guilt of the theft, is not a confession that he took the property, and hence is not a confession of theft. Willard v. St., 26 T. Cr. 126 (9 S. W. 358). A defendant, who testifies in his own behalf, cannot be impeached by confessions made by him under circumstances which would have rendered the same inadmissible against him, as original inculpatory evidence. Morales v. St., 36 S. W, 435 (overruling Quintana. v. St., 29 T. Cr. 4.-01; Phillips v. St., 34 S. W. 272; and distinguishing Ferguson v. St., 31 T. Cr. 93 (19 S. W. 901). The confessions of a defendant who is in arrest and not having been warned or cautioned, are not admissible as original evidence against him, and can only be used for the purpose of impeaching him, where he has, as a witness in his own behalf, testified to contradictory statements. Phillips v. St.. 35 '1'. Cr. 480 (34 S. W. 272), and t-his ease is overruled by the case of Morales v. St., 36 T. Cr. 234 (36 S. W. 435. and 36 S. W. 846), holding that a defendant who has testified as a witness in his own behalf cannot be impeached by the statements and confessons made by him while in arrest, and where he had not first been cautioned and warned as to the consequences of any statemen...

More Books by Texas

Donate to EbookNetworking
Prev
Next