Oliver v. State

Lumpkin, Justice.

There is but one question of law in this case requiring notice at our hands. One of the grounds of the motion for a new trial alleged that the court erred in admitting, over the objection of counsel for the accused, *84the testimony of one Davis as to what the prisoner stated on his commitment trial, “it not having been shown that the written statement was lost, and it being presumed that the statement was put in ■writing.”

There can be no doubt that a statement made by the accused upon his commitment trial is admissible against him upon his trial in chief. Dumas v. The State, 63…