
    HOLMES v. STATE.
    (No. 9139.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 10, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;5I8(l), 530 — Testimony by constable as to conversation of aceusedi with another after arrest inadmissible.
    Testimony by constable as to alleged conversation of accused with another, after arrest, relative to having already arranged bond and expecting officers, was inadmissible, where statement was not reduced to writing or accused warned, as required ,by law.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;>5l8(l), 530 — Testimony as to conversation of accused with father while i in jail held inadmissibier
    Testimony as to accused’s conversation with father while in jail relative to pleading guilty, was inadmissible, where accused was not warned or statements reduced to writing, as required by law.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appea.1 from District Court, Newton County; Y. H. Stark, Judge.
    Joe Holmes was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    J.B. Porse, of Newton, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, Statens Atty., and Grover O. Morris, Asst.. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was charged by indictment with murdering Alfred Gray-son in the district court of Newton county, convicted of manslaughter, and his punishment assessed at five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

Complaint is made by the appellant in bill No. 2 to the action of the court in permitting the state’s witness Binson, a constable, ’to testify to an alleged conversation between the defendant and one De Hart and his wife, after they arrested the defendant, to the effect that “I heard defendant tell Dalhart and his wife that he was going to tell that he had been over there two or three days looking after his stock, and he says I have , already arranged for a $10,000 bond, and he says I was expecting them.” There was no contention that said statement was reduced to writing, or that the defendant was warned, as required by law, when said statement was made.

As bill of exception No. 3, raises a similar question, we can dispose of both together. In this hill it is shown that the defendant was placed in jail awaiting an examining trial. The state was permitted, over the appellant’s objection, to introduce in evidence from the witness Hall, whom the bill shows went with the father of defendant and a man by the name of Taylor to the jail, where the following conversation occurred between the defendant and the defendant’s father:

“I believe Joe said something about he was going to plead guilty and his father advised him not to 'do it. X believe Joe said he was going to come out openly and say that he did it.”

The objection urged to this testimony was that the defendant was under arrest and in jail, and had not. been warned, as required by law, and the statements had not been reduced to writing, as required by law, all of which was overruled, and the testimony was admitted.

We believe in both instances, as set out in bills Nos. 2 and 3, the court was in error. Buckner v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 271, 106 S. W. 363; Clark v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 390, 207 S. W. 98; Bonatz v. State, 85 Tex. R. R. 292, 212 S. W. 495; Dover v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 545, 197 S. W. 192; McDaniel, v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 560, 81 S. W. 301. See Id., 48 Tex. Cr. R. 342, 87 S. W. 1044. The above authorities are in point, and cover the contention made by the appellant, in the. instant case, and clearly show, that the testimony complained of was not admissible. The record discloses no other errors.

For the reasons above stated, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and remanded, and it is accordingly so ordered.

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.  