
    PIERCE v. STATE.
    (No. 11405.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 7, 1928.
    Rehearing Denied May 2,1928.
    1. Criminal law <§=>537 — Oral confession, wherein defendant told officers whereabouts of pistol used and money taken in robbery, held admissible (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 727).
    In trial for robbery with firearms, defendant’s unwarned oral confession, in which she told officers whereabouts of pistol used and money taken, held admissible under Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 727. ,
    2. Criminal law <§=3537 — Parts of confession, leading to discovery of extraneous corroborative facts, are admissible, though involuntary, improperly obtained, or otherwise inadmissible.
    Parts of confession leading to discovery of extraneous facts convincingly corroborating accused’s statements are admissible, though involuntarily made, obtained by improper means, or otherwise inadmissible.
    3. Criminal law <§=>l 170½(6) — Witness’ casual statement that defendant admitted holding up two places held not reversible error, in view of immediate instruction to disregard.it.
    Witness’ casual statement that defendant, in trial for robbery with firearms, admitted holding up two places, held not reversible error, in view of court’s immediate instruction not to consider it, even if bill of exception, not negativing idea that holdups were so related as to be admissible, were sufficient.
    4. Criminal law <⅞=! 166(1) — Refusal to deliver to defendant her written statement to prosecuting attorney held not error, where none
    . of it was introduced in evidence.
    Refusal to turn over to defendant, for use as evidence, written statement made by her to assistant district attorney shortly after her arrest, on robbery charge, held not error, where ■none of it was made issue, nor any of its contents used against her, she admitted making to such officer no such explanation of her possession of money taken as she made on trial, and was further questioned only as to whether she signed' statement, and court placed no limitation on cross-examination of defendant or any other witness with reference to such statement.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tar-rant County; Geo. E. Hosey, Judge.
    Norma Pierce was convicted of robbery with firearms, and she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Johnson, Moore & Lindsay and W. E. Myres, all of Port Worth, for appellant.
    Jesse E. Martin, Cr. Dist. Atty., and Arthur L. Moore, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., both of Fort Worth, and A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   MARTIN, J.

Offense, robbery with firearms ; penalty, ten yearsi in the penitentiary.

Prosecuting witness was hijacked and robbed of $30' in Port Worth by a woman. About three hours later appellant, in company with one McLean, was arrested on the Decatur road out of Port Worth a short distance. She was identified by prosecuting witness as the party who had robbed him. Appellant shortly after her arrest made an oral confession in which she told where the pistol with which she robbed prosecuting witness was located, together with the money which she took from said witness. The officers aft-erwards found the pistol and $27 of the money as a result of the statements in her confession.

The admission of this unwarned verbal confession was not erroneous, as claimed by appellant. “If, however, the existence of extraneous, facts is discovered through the statements of' the accused, no reason exists for rejecting those parts of the confession which led to the discovery, and which, though not voluntarily made or obtained by improper means or for any reason inadmissible, have been corroborated convincingly by the facts discovered.” Underhill’s Criminal Evidence (3d Ed.) par. 230. Article 727, C. C. P., 1925, renders such a confession of accused inadmissible, “unless in connection with said confession, he makes statements of facts or circumstances that are found to be true, which conduce to establish his guilt, such as the finding of secreted or stolen property.” See, also, Fielder v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 184, 49 S.W. 376, Windham v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. R. 666, 150 S. W. 613, and authorities collated at page 827, vol. 2, Vernon’s C. C. P. 1925.

By an answer in response to the district attorney’s question, the witness Wyatt stated that appellant admitted holding up two places. The court immediately instructed the jury to not consider the answer. Appellant’s bill of exception fails to negative the idea that the two holdups were not so related as to be admissible. Such statement of the witness was only a casual reference, however, to the two holdups, and, even if the bill were sufficient, we cannot believe the matter, in view of the prompt action of the court, constitutes reversible error. Wofford v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 624, 132 S. W. 929; Alexander v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 395, 49 S. W. 229, 50 S. W. 716.

Bill No. 6 raises the question of error of the trial court in refusing to turn over to appellant, to be used as evidence, the written statement made by appellant to the assistant district attorney shortly after her arrest. No’part of such statement was made an issue on the trial, and none of its contents were used against appellant. She was asked about making the same explanation to the assistant district attorney of her possession of the money found on McLean as she made on the trial, and she admitted in answer to such question that she made no such explanation at that time. This is as far as the examination went with reference to such statement, except she 'was asked if she signed it. If the writing had been produced, the absence of this from the statement could not have helped her. No part of the statement was introduced in evidence, and no limitation was placed by the court on the examination of appellant or any other witness with reference to such statement. Under these circumstances there was no error in the court’s action. Taylor v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 338, 221 S. W. 611; St. Clair v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 423, 284 S. W. 572, and authorities there cited.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

MORROW, P. J.

After a careful re-examination of the record in the light of the appellant’s motion for rehearing, we are of the opinion that on the original hearing the proper disposition of the appeal was made. A discussion of the points raised in the motion would be but a reiteration of the matters set forth in the original opinion.

The motion is overruled. 
      <§=For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     