The opinion
ONION, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached. This court has held that Miranda has no application to statements which are res gestae of the offense. See Hill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 420 S.W.2d 408 ; Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 828 ; Cf. Hernandez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 831 . I would, however, disassociate myself from any impression the majority opinion might leave that time is the controlling factor or only factor to be considered in determining the admissibility of res gestae statements. The statement made by appellant was as a result of an interrogation after arrest and there was no evidence at the time of its admission to show that the statement was spontaneous. In the light of subsequent testimony, and the fact that appellant, testifying in his own behalf, related he had several beers prior to his arrest, no error is presented.
MORRISON, J., joins in this concurrence.