observing that “[i]t is well established” that article 15.17 “relates to the duties of the arresting officer and the magistrate, and failure to comply with the statute does not automatically invalidate a confession”
How later courts described this case
- observing that “[i]t is well established” that article 15.17 “relates to the duties of the arresting officer and the magistrate, and failure to comply with the statute does not automatically invalidate a confession”
- “The trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the witnesses and may believe or disbelieve all or any part of any witness’[s] testimony.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TEAGUE, Judge,
dissenting.
Having concluded that today should be the day for this Court to finally give meaning to the provisions of Art. 15.17, V.A.C. C.P., that the person making an arrest of the accused shall without unnecessary delay take the accused or have him taken before some magistrate of the county where he was arrested, I would first apply to this cause the same principles that Justice Frankfurter stated in the unanimous opinions he authored for the Supreme Court in Me Nabb v. United States, 318 *681 U.S. 332 , 63 S.Ct. 608 , 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943), and Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 , 77 S.Ct. 1356 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957), and would then reverse appellant’s conviction for failure of the police to comply with the above statute. The majority, however, opts to continue on its merry way. To the majority’s continued subscription to a rule of law that does not comport with “civilized standards of procedure and evidence,” McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. at 340 , 63 S.Ct. at 613 , 87 L.Ed. at 824 , I dissent.