The opinion
MORRISSON, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the disposition of this case by my brother Woodley, but, in view of what we said in Hill v. State, 158 Texas Cr. Rep. 313 , 256 S.W. 2d 93 , I deem it advisable to explain my position. In the Hill case, we quoted from Thacker v. Commonwealth, 16 S.W. 448 , and distinguished it from the case before us then. We did not follow the Thacker case, but, from the language of our opinion, it might be concluded that we were in accord with the holding of the Kentucky court in such case.
After a more exhaustive study of the question, we have concluded that the rule which we quoted and discussed- does not represent the majority view and that the rule expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 727, 732 , and set forth in Judge Woodley’s opinion, is a sounder rule and is followed by the Supreme Courts of the following States:
California — Ex parte Gutierrez, 45 Cal. 428 .
Michigan — People v. Palm, 223 N.W. 67 .
New York — People ex rel Berger v. Warden of the Workhouse, 163 N.Y.S. 910 .
*36 New Jersey — State v. Rowe, 181 A. 706 .
Ohio — Sims v. Alvis, 98 N.E. 2d 76 .
Massachusetts — Boss’ Case, 2 Pick. R. 165.
Indiana — Kelley v. State, 185 N.E. 453 .
Minnesota — State v. Zywicki, 221 N.W. 900 .
Florida — Cross v. State, 119 So. 380 .
New Hampshire — In re Moulton, 77 A. 2d 26 .
Nebraska — Taylor v. State, 207 N.W. 207 .
Louisiana — State v. Guidry, 124 So. 832 .
Kansas — Cochran v. Simpson, Warden, 53 P. 2d 502 .
Virginia — Rand v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. 738 .
Maine — State v. Woods, 68 Me. 409 .
Oklahoma — Jones v. State, 133 P. 249 .