# Madeley v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · March 3, 1965 · 388 S.W.2d 187

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9858630

## Case

- **Full name:** Reggie C. MADELEY, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** March 3, 1965
- **Citations:** 388 S.W.2d 187
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Morrison
- **Judges:** McDonald, Morrison, Woodley
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9858630

## Opinion text

ON APPELLANT’S SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
The offense is burglary with two prior felony convictions alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life.
Our attention has now been addressed to an error not heretofore discussed which we conclude is determinative of this appeal. When appellant’s confession was offered in evidence, at counsel’s request the jury was retired to allow the court to hear evidence on the question of the voluntariness thereof. Officer La Font was heard by the court on the question. He testified that two other officers, whom he named, had delivered appellant to him prior to the making of the confession and had asked him to take appellant’s confession. He further stated that a clerk, whom he named, was with him and participated in the taking of the confession. Appellant’s counsel asked that the three witnesses whom Officer La Font had mentioned be called so that he might examine them, but the court refused *190 to hear anyone but Officer La Font. In this he fell into error. In Melendez v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 391 , 314 S.W.2d 104 , we said:
“In the recent cases of Davis v. State [ 165 Tex.Cr.R. 456 ] 308 S.W.2d 880 , and Law v. State [ 165 Tex.Cr.R. 542 ] 309 S.W.2d 443 , the rule was re-stated by this court in its opinions reversing the convictions because of the courts’ action in refusing the request of the accused that he be permitted in the absence of the jury to introduce evidence showing the facts and circumstances surrounding the making of the written confession in order that the court might determine in the first instance whether the written confession offered in evidence was admissible. See also 18 Tex. Juris., 188, Sec. 103; 2 McCormick and Ray on Evidence, 2d Ed., p. 100, Sec. 1222; Cavazos v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 564 , 160 S.W.2d 260 ; Brown v. U. S., 5 Cir., 228 F.2d 286 .”
Appellant’s second motion for rehearing is granted; the judgment of affirmance is set aside; and the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9858630. Public record. Not legal advice.