Henzen v. State

In Henzen v. State, 62 Tex. Crim. 336, 137 S.W. 1141, 1142 (1911), the Court addressed the purpose of this amendment. The Court observed that "claimed verbal confessions were the subject of much controversy. Usually the person who claimed that the confession was made, was either a peace officer, the district or county attorney, or the magistrate of the lower court - justice of the peace. The defendant would deny and swear that no confession was made, or, if so, no warning given." Id. 137,S.W. 1141, 1142. As a result, the Court was "frequently called to comment on such matters and to hold that confessions were to be received with great caution." Id. The Court concluded that the "Legislature, to prevent such uncertainty and controversies, deemed it wise" to impose these additional requirements. Id. 137,S.W. 1141, 1143.