Full opinion text
HURT, PRESIDING Judge. This is a conviction for arson. Without the confession of the accused, the evidence is not sufficient to support this conviction. Deputy Sheriff Watts swears, that he cautioned accused, and this being so, the confessions were admissible; but there are strong circumstances in this record which tend to show that Watts had not cautioned the defendant at any time. Under this condition the court should have instructed the jury, that if they believed that Watts had cautioned the accused before the latter made the confession, then such confession should be considered by them, together with all other evidence before them;.but that if they believed that the accused had not been so cautioned, they should entirely disregard the confessions. Appellant swears, that such inducements were held out to him by the deputy sheriff as caused him to confess his guilt; but that in fact he was not guilty and knew nothing of the crime. If the inducements sworn to by the defendant were in fact held out to him by the deputy sheriff, then his admissions of guilt were not admissible for any purpose, though the defendant was cautioned. Under our statute, if a statement made by the accused leads to a discovery of the fruits of the crime, then such statements will be admissible as a confession, although at the time the accused was under arrest, or inducements were held out to him to make the statement. Weller v. The State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 200. But to render the confession admissible under this exception, the facts or circumstances must be discovered by means of the statements made. If they had already been discovered when the accused made bis statement, or were not discovered by means of tbe statement of tbe accused, they are not admissible. Walker v. The State, 2 Texas Crim. App., 326; Allison v. The State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 122; Nolen v. The State, Id., 474. In tbis case there were no facts and circumstances found to be true in pursuance of tbe confession wbicb conduced to establish tbe guilt of defendant. Tbe trial judge so held, and we think tbe bolding correct. As there was a conflict in tbe testimony of appellant and Watts as to whether or not tbe latter held out inducements to appellant, such as to render bis confession inadmissible, tbe court should have submitted tbis question to tbe jury, instructing them, in effect, that if they believed from tbe evidence that such inducements were held out, then such confession was not admissible for any purpose — could not be used to prove guilt, or as an attack upon tbe credibility of tbe defendant as witness. If, on tbe other band, no such inducements were held out, and appellant was cautioned, then to consider tbe confession. But appellant testified in tbe case. Tbis being so, tbe confession of tbe accused, though not cautioned, could be used by tbe State, not for tbe purpose of proving guilt, but to affect bis credit as a witness. If, however, be was induced to confess by tbe promises of tbe deputy sheriff, no fruits of tbe crime being discovered by reason thereof, bis confession could be used for no purpose whatever. These rules were not given in tbe charge of tbe court, though some of them were requested, by counsel for appellant. For the omission in tbe charge, tbe judgment is reversed and cause remanded. Reversed and remanded. Judges all present and concurring.