Gallegos v. State, 32781
Decision Date | 15 June 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 32781,32781 |
Citation | 43 N.W.2d 1,152 Neb. 831 |
Parties | GALLEGOS v. STATE. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Corpus delicti is composed of two elements, the fact or result forming the basis of the charge and the existence of a
criminal agency as the cause thereof. Homicide corpus delicti is not established until it is proved that a human being is dead, and the death occurred as the result of the criminal agency of another.
2. A conviction for felony will not be sustained when the only evidence of guilt is the extrajudicial confession of the defendant that a crime has been committed.
3. While a voluntary confession is insufficient, standing alone, to prove that a crime has been committed, it is, nevertheless, competent evidence of that fact, and may, with slight corroborative circumstances, establish the corpus delicti as well as the defendant's guilty participation.
4. In laying a foundation in a criminal case for the admission of a confession in evidence, it is sufficient to establish affirmatively all that occurred immediately prior to and at the time of making the confession, provided such affirmative proof shows it to have been freely and voluntarily made and excludes the hypothesis of improper inducements or threats.
5. The question of whether or not in the first instance the State has laid a proper and sufficient foundation for the admission of such eidence is one of law for the court, and if the court determines as a matter of law that no sufficient foundation has been laid then the confession should be rejected, but where the confession is received in evidence, its voluntary character is still a question of fact to be determined by the jury.
Mothersead, Wright & Simmons, Scottsbluff, for plaintiff in error.
Clarence S. Beck, Atty. Gen., Homer L. Kyle, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Heard before CARTER, MESSMORE, CHAPPELL, WENKE, and BOSLAUGH, JJ.
A jury in the district court for Scotts Bluff County found the defendant, Agapita Gallegos, guilty of manslaughter. His motion for a new trial was overruled and he was sentenced to seve ten years in the penitentiary. To review the record of his conviction and sentence the defendant has instituted this error proceeding.
For convenience we shall refer to the plaintiff in error as the defendant.
Defendant contends that the corus delicti, which means that a crime has actually been committed, has not been established. Corpus delicti is composed of two elements, the fact or result forming the basis of the charge and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause thereof. 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 916, p. 181. 'Homicide corpus delicti is not established until it is proved that a human being is dead, and the death occurred as the result of the criminal agency of another.' Reyes v. State, 151 Neb. 636, 38 N.W.2d 539, 544.
The confessions of the defendant, the first on September 23, 1949, and the second on October 1, 1949, fully detail the crime and its commission. Defendant therein confessed that in the early part of October 1948, while Mrs. Genovesa Carillo was living with him and his two children in a tenant house located on a farm near Minatare in Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska, he got into an argument with her; that the argument started while they were getting ready to retire; that while arguing he picked up a piece of stove wood; that he hit her with this piece of wood, the blow being on the head and just behind the left ear; that when struck she fell to the floor in a sort of dazed condition but continued to talk; that while she was on the floor he hit her twice with the same piece of wood and in about the same place; that some blood flowed from her head and formed a spot on the floor; that she died from the blows; that this all took place in the east room of the two-room tenant house in which they were living; that he buried her the next day, just after dark, at a point east of the tenant house; that he dug the grave north and south, placing her with her head to the north; that he wrapped her body in a blanket and placed a handkerchief in her mouth to keep the dirt from getting in; and that she had on one of his overalls and a lady's shirt, but no shoes.
We said in Sullivan v. State, 58 Neb. 796, 79 N.W. 721, 722, that:
As stated in 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 916, p. 182:
See, also, Cryderman v. State, 101 Neb. 85, 161 N.W. 1045; Egbert v. State, 113 Neb. 790, 205 N.W. 252; Limmerick v. State, 120 Neb. 558, 234 N.W. 98; Whomble v. State, 143 Neb. 667, 10 N.W.2d 627; Clark v. State, 151 Neb. 348, 37 N.W.2d 601; Reyes v. State, supra.
However, as stated in 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 916, p. 184:
That we have followed this general rule is evidenced by many holdings of this court. After stating the foregoing, quoted from Sullivan v. State, supra, the court therein went on to say:
Limmerick v. State, supra [120 Neb. 558, 234 N.W. 99].
This principle has often been reaffirmed by this court. See, Egbert v. State, supra; Whomble v. State, supra; Clark v. State, supra.
Other than the confessions there is evidence that defendant, an illiterate Mexican beet field worker about 38 years of age, returned to Nebraska from Mexico shortly after Christmas 1947; that he had with him at that time his son, about 10 years of age, his daughter, about 13 years of age, and a Mexican woman between 35 and 40 years of age by the name of Mrs. Genovesa Carrillo, who he held out as his wife; that in April 1948 he obtained employment with a farmer by the name of Carl Mowry who lived about 15 miles northeast of Scottsbluff and moved into a tenant house on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Culombe v. Connecticut
...138; State v. Robuck, 1952, 126 Mont. 302, 248 P.2d 817. Nebraska: Kitts v. State, 1949, 151 Neb. 679, 39 N.W.2d 283; Gallegos v. State, 1950, 152 Neb. 831, 43 N.W.2d 1, affirmed 342 U.S. 55, 72 S.Ct. 141, 96 L.Ed. 86; Parker v. State, 1957, 164 Neb. 614, 83 N.W.2d 347. Nevada: State v. Bou......
-
Jackson v. Denno, 62
...88, 97-98, 15 N.W.2d 323, 328-329 (1944); Schlegel v. State, 143 Neb. 497, 500, 10 N.W.2d 264, 266 (1943); cf. Gallegos v. State, 152 Neb. 831, 837-840, 43 N.W.2d 1, 5-6 (1950) (semble), aff'd on another point sub nom. Gallegos v. Nebraska, 342 U.S. 55, 72 S.Ct. 141 NEW HAMPSHIRE: State v. ......
-
State v. Reizenstein
...and reliably determined.' The principle set out in Jackson v. Denno, supra, has long been followed in this state. See, Gallegos v. State, 152 Neb. 831, 43 N.W.2d 1; State v. Longmore, 178 Neb. 509, 134 N.W.2d 66. In the latter case, we also reaffirmed the principles of Parker v. State, 164 ......
-
State v. O'Kelly, 35443
...first instance only as soon as is practical under the existing circumstances. Maher v. State, 144 Neb. 463, 13 N.W.2d 641; Gallegos v. State, 152 Neb. 831, 43 N.W.2d 1. In the Maher case, supra, the elapsed time between the arrest and the hearing before the magistrate on preliminary hearing......