The opinion
ROBERTS, Judge
(concurring).
I feel that the majority’s reliance upon Butler v. State, supra, as authority for the present case is misplaced. The instant cause is easily distinguishable.
In Butler, the dissenting opinion stated:
“The testimony used in this case as set out in the majority opinion cannot and does not constitute ‘a confession’ or even an inculpatory statement in regard to the crime alleged.”
Exactly the opposite is true of the case now before us. These statements used for impeachment are inculpatory and constituted a confession. For that reason, they were inadmissible.
Therefore, though my brother Odom and I agree with the results in the present case, we make no retreat from the position stated in the dissenting opinion in Butler v. State, supra.
ODOM, J., joins in this opinion.