State v. Jones
Decision Date | 31 January 1874 |
Citation | 54 Mo. 478 |
Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant in Error, v. BENJ. JONES, Plaintiff in Error. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Cole Circuit Court.
E. L. King & Bro., for Plaintiff in Error.
I. The confession of the defendant was inadmissible in evidence. (State vs. Brockman, 46 Mo., 566.)
J. R. Edwards, for Defendant in Error.
The only question at all important to be considered in this case is, whether the confession made by the defendant was properly admitted in evidence against him. From the record it appears, that the defendant, with several others, was indicted for killing one Hildebrand in Moniteau County.
A short time after the commission of the murderous act, the defendant was arrested in Miller County. He denied all knowledge of the crime, and the party, in whose possession he was, hung him twice by the neck, and extorted a statement from him in regard to the murder. He was then taken back to Moniteau County, and when he arrived in California, the county seat of that county, and whilst he was sitting on his horse, one Hickox went up to him and shook hands with him, and told him that he was sorry to see him in the fix that he was in. The prisoner said that he had done nothing. Hickox then told him that he was afraid he was in a very bad fix, because Blankenship (who was alleged to be a participator in the crime) had said, that the prisoner and two other men had come to his house, and forced him to pilot them through the prairie to Hildebrand's house, and therefore the prisoner must be the murderer. The prisoner then asked Hickox, did he say that? And Hickox replied, that he did, and that he, the prisoner, must know whether it was true or not. The parties then separated, and afterwards the prisoner sent for Hickox to come and see him in the back room of a store-house, where he was confined. He then said to Hickox, that Blankenship had betrayed them, that he had made up his mind to tell the whole thing, and he then made a detailed confession of all the facts relating to the murder.
Before a confession can be received in evidence in a criminal case, it must be shown that it was voluntary. And a promise of benefit or favor, or threat of intimidation or disfavor, held out by the person having authority in the matter, will be sufficient to exclude a confession, made in consequence of such inducement, either of hope or fear. (State vs. Brockman 46 Mo., 566.)
In this case, Hickox, the person to whom the confession was made, was a private citizen, had no authority in the matter, nor does it appear that any threats or inducements were held out from any source to obtain the confession. It is true, that on the preceding day the prisoner had been brutally treated; but that had been done by a different party, and it is not shown, that any of them were present exerting any influence when the confession to Hickox was made.
Where a confession has once been obtained by means of hope or fear, confessions subsequently made are presumed to come from the same motive; and, if it is not shown that the original influences have ceased to operate, they are inadmissible. (
The cases above cited show, that in each instance the prisoners were intimidated, and under the influence of threats made the confessions before the magistrate when they were being examined, and the subsequent confessions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Barrington
...him assumed his guilt, or that he was not warned that his statements would be used against him. Kelley's Crim. Law, pp. 180, 181; State v. Jones, 54 Mo. 478; State v. Phelps, 74 Mo. 128; State v. Northway, 164 Mo. 513, 65 S. W. 331; State v. McClain, 137 Mo. 307, 38 S. W. 906; State v. Rush......
-
State v. Nagle, 30588.
...12 Cyc. 475; State v. Brown, 73 Mo. 631; State v. Condit (Mo.), 270 S.W. 286; State v. Hart, 292 Mo. 90, 237 S.W. 473; 16 C.J. 722; State v. Jones, 54 Mo. 478; 1 Whart. Crim. Law, sec. 594; Roscoe, Crim. Ev. 45; Peter v. State, 4 Smed. & Mar. 31; Commonwealth v. Harmon, 4 Pa. 269; Van Buren......
-
State v. Nagle
...be excluded." [16 C. J. 722-723.] This rule has been quite uniformly followed in this and other jurisdictions for a long time. [See State v. Jones, 54 Mo. 478; State Brown, 73 Mo. 631; State v. Ellis, supra; State v. Condit, supra.] The prosecuting attorney and his stenographer, Miss Rose S......
-
State v. Keller
......311; 12. Cyc. 470.] But the witness Arthur was a private detective;. she was not in his custody and the cases say that a private. detective is not a "person in authority" within the. purview of the rule we quote above. [3 Ency. of Ev. 319;. State v. Patterson, 73 Mo. 695; State v. Jones, 54 Mo. 478; 12 Cyc. 472.] While this may be a. case of the hardship of single instances, in that it may well. be that the defendant here did not know the difference. between a private detective and an officer having power to. bind and loose, the necessity for a hard-and-fast rule makes. us ......