
    BROWN v. STATE.
    (No. 3627.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 16, 1915.
    Rehearing Denied June 25, 1915.)
    1. Witnesses <&wkey;277 — Criminal Prosecution-Privilege oe Accused — Waiver.
    In a prosecution for burglary, where the defendant pleaded guilty and filed a plea asking that sentence be suspended, taking the stand to testify that he had never been convicted of a felony, the action of the court in permitting the state to cross-examine defendant about the burglary was proper, since where a defendant in a criminal prosecution voluntarily takes the stand he may be questioned about any matter legitimately connected with that under inquiry, as well as about matters he testified to on direct examination.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 925, 979-983; Dec. Dig. &wkey;277.]
    2. Witnesses &wkey;>277 — Plea oe Suspension oe Sentence — Examination oe Accused.
    Where one, who pleaded guilty of burglary, filed a plea asking that sentence be suspended, the state could cross-examine him, after his taking the stand to testify that he had never been convicted of a felony, as to the mode and manner of committing the offense, as an aid to the jury in determining whether they should suspend sentence.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 925, 979-983; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>277.)
    3. Burglary <&wkey;41 — Sufficiency oe Evidence.
    In a prosecution for burglary, evidence held sufficient to show that accused broke in, and did not find the.door open.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Burglary, Cent. Dig. §§ 94-108, 109; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>41.]
    4. Criminal Law <&wkey;875 — Trial—Verdict.
    A verdict, in a prosecution for burglary, reading, “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of burglary as charged, and assess his punishment at two years in the penitentiary,” was not insufficient as omitting the word “confinement.”
    [Ed. Note. — Por -other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2089, 2090; Dec. Dig. <&wkey; 875.]
    Appeal from District Court, Taylor County; Thomas L. Blanton, Judge.
    Ernest Brown was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Will S. Payne, of Abilene, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Upon an indictment charging him with burglary, appellant entered a plea of guilty, filing a plea asking that the sentence be suspended. The record shows that the court admonished the defendant as to the consequences of his plea, etc., and he insisted on entering the plea. The state introduced evidence tending to show that the barn of J. H. Couch had been burglarized and some 30 bushels o.f wheat taken therefrom. At the conclusion of the evidence offered in behalf of the state, appellant took the stand and testified he had never before been convicted of a felony in this or any other state. No other questions were asked him by his counsel, but the state cross-examined Mm as to the mode, manner, etc., of committing this offense. The only bill of exceptions in the record complains that the court erred in permitting the state to cross-examine appellant and inquire about the burglary, for he says he took the stand only to testify that he had never theretofore been convicted of a felony. A defendant cannot be compelled to testify in any case; but, when he once voluntarily takes the stand, it is not only about matters he testified to on direct examination that he can be cross-examined, but he can be questioned about any matter legitimately connected with the matter under inquiry. I-Ie becomes as any other witness in the case; the cross-examination is not confined to matters elicited on his examination in chief. Brown v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 597, 44 S. W. 176, and eases cited in section 970 of White’s Ann. Proc. But, independent of this, this testimony would be admissible on Ms plea of suspension of the sentence. The state would have the right to inquire into the mode and manner of committing the offense as an aid to the jury in determining whether or not they would suspend the sentence. It might be the first offense, yet committed in such a way as to show Mm unworthy of the mercy shown in suspending the sentence for the first offense.

Appellant also contends that the evidence is insufficient to show burglary. It is true that appellant testified the door of the barn was ■ open, but Mr. Couch testified the door was always kept locked; the lock showed to have been broken, and appellant when, found was in possession of tools with which the lock could have been broken. The chain was clipped, and appellant was in possession of wire clippers. If that had been an issue in the case, the evidence would fully authorize a finding that he had broken the door open, although he testified that it was open. However, appellant entered a plea of guilty, and made no such contest on the triaL

The verdict reads:

“We, the jury, find the' defendant, Ernest Brown, guilty of burglary as charged in the indictment, and assess his punishment at two years in the penitentiary.”

The criticism that the verdict is insufficient in that the word “confinement” is omitted is without merit.

The judgment is affirmed.  