referred to as the “voucher rule”
How later courts described this case
- referred to as the “voucher rule”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by County v. State, 812 S.W.2d 303 (1991)
The Palafox rule is also inapplicable in this case because the appellant, and not the State, elicited Severe's testimony concerning appellant's exculpatory statements.
Distinguished by Charles County v. State, 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 59 (1989)
The Palafox rule is also inapplicable in this case because the appellant, and not the State, elicited Severe’s testimony concerning appellant’s exculpatory statements.
The opinion
DOUGLAS, Judge,
dissenting.
Assuming that statements in the confession were exculpatory, Judge Daily’s dissenting opinion is correct, but his footnote 1, which states that the State should not be allowed to introduce only a part of a defendant’s statement, is too broad. Parts of a defendant’s statement or confession may be inadmissible and should not be admitted. We still have the rule adopted by the Legislature that would prevent a distorted version by the introduction of a part of a confession by the State. Article 38.24, V.A. C.C.P., Part of an act, declaration, conversation or writing, provides:
“When part of an act, declaration or conversation or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by the other, as when a letter is read, all letters on the same subject between the same parties may be given... . ”
The judgment should be affirmed.