State v. Brown

Citation73 Mo. 631
PartiesTHE STATE v. BROWN, Appellant.
Decision Date30 April 1881
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court.--HON. JOSEPH CRAVENS, Judge.

REVERSED.

A. L. Thomas for appellant.

D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State, cited as to the admissibility of the confession made to Proctor, State v. Jones, 54 Mo. 478; Sarah v. State, 28 Ga. 576; State v. Carlisle, 57 Mo. 104, 105; State v. Simon, 50 Mo. 372.

HENRY, J.

At the December term, 1879, of the Jasper circuit court, the defendant was indicted for burglary and larceny, tried, convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment in the penitentiary for the burglary, and two years for the larceny. He has appealed from the judgment.

At the trial, the State introduced as a witness S. H. Proctor, who testified that in October, 1879, he was acting as an officer for the sheriff, (deputy we infer,) and was present at Sarcoxie on the day that there was a preliminary investigation of the charge against the defendant, before Jonas Prigmore, a justice of the peace; that after the defendant was committed, he was delivered to the witness to be taken to the jail at Carthage, and while on the train confessed his guilt to the witness. He also testified that he made no threats or promises to the prisoner to induce him to make the confession. Defendant then offered to prove by one Jacobs, that he was present in the justice's court when defendant was examined on the charge, at Sarcoxie, and that there were also present the justice, Prigmore, the constable, Fewell, and Jno. McKoy, and that said parties told the accused it would be better for him to tell all about the taking of the wheat, and promised him, if he would, that they would execute a bond in the sum of $1,000, conditioned that defendant should not be prosecuted, and on his agreeing to do so, prepared a bond, signed it and asked witness to sign it, which he did, and thereupon accused confessed his guilt, and was, on the same day, delivered into the custody of Proctor to be carried to jail. It does not appear that Proctor was present when that confession was procured, or had any knowledge of the inducement held out to the prisoner to procure it. The evidence offered was excluded.

It is well settled law, that a confession must not be received when the accused has been induced by any threats or promises to make it; “and when a confession has once been obtained by means of hope or fear, confessions subsequently made are presumed to come from the same motive, and are inadmissible, though no such influences are shown,” until it is shown, “that such original influences have ceased to operate.” Wharton's Am. Crim. Law, Book 11, § 694; Russell on Crimes, 2 vol., 833; State v. Carr, 37 Vt. 191; State v. Roberts, 1 Devereux 259; Regina v. Hewett, 41 E. C. L. R. 291; s. c., Carr. & Marsh. 534. In the case of Venaable v. Com., 24 Gratt. 639, cited by the Attorney General in support of the ruling of the circuit court, it appeared that before the last confession of the prisoner was made, he was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • State v. Menz
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1937
    ...that a confession thus made is involuntary. State v. White, 316 Mo. 576, 292 S.W. 411; State v. Thomas, 250 Mo. 189, 157 S.W. 330; State v. Brown, 73 Mo. 631; 16 C.J. 726. (d) Confession of a defendant secured by officers by promises, duress, and other influence is involuntary, and once any......
  • State v. Nagle
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 15, 1930
    ...Sup. Ct. 183, 42 L. Ed. 568; 17 C.J. 720; People v. Trybus, 219 N.Y. 18; Hector v. State, 2 Mo. 166, 22 Am. Dec. 454; 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......
  • State v. Nagle
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 15, 1930
    ...18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568; 17 C. J. 720; People v. Trybus, 219 N.Y. 18; Hector v. State, 2 Mo. 166, 22 Am. Dec. 454; 12 Cyc. 475; State v. Brown, 73 Mo. 631; State v. (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,......
  • State v. Menz
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1937
    ... ... alleged confession, and it was made to an officer of the law, ... the law presumes that a confession thus made is involuntary ... State v. White, 316 Mo. 576, 292 S.W. 411; State ... v. Thomas, 250 Mo. 189, 157 S.W. 330; State v ... Brown, 73 Mo. 631; 16 C. J. 726. (d) Confession of a ... defendant secured by officers by promises, duress, and other ... influence is involuntary, and once any such influence is ... shown to exist, it is presumed to continue until the State ... has affirmatively shown that the influence in fact no ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT