Baldwin v. State
| Decision Date | 31 December 1853 |
| Parties | BALDWIN v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
The plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted at the November term, 1853, of the circuit court of Jackson, for the larceny of a bank note. The indictment in a single count describes the bank-note as “one bank-bill on the Bank of Tennessee, of the denomination of ten dollars and of the value of ten dollars; one ten-dollar bank-note of the value of ten dollars; one bank-note on the Union bank in Tennessee, of the denomination of ten dollars and of the value of ten dollars; and one bank-bill on the Planters' Bank in Tennessee, of the denomination of ten dollars and of the value of ten dollars.” The material facts proved at the trial are stated in the opinion. The prisoner moved for a new trial and in arrest of judgment; which being overruled by the court (Judge Goodall presiding), he appealed in error to this court.
Gardenhire, for the prisoner.
There are in effect four counts in the indictment, the first, third and fourth of which are clearly not sustained by the proof. They contain matter essentially descriptive of the bills supposed to have been stolen, and the proof must correspond with the allegations. 1 Greenl. on Ev., secs. 56, 58; 2 Russ. on Cr. 106, 107; Whart. Cr. Law. 127, 128.
2. The second count is clearly bad, because it charges no fact or circumstance which identifies the thing stolen. Every fact necessary to be proved, and which is essential to conviction, must be alleged in the indictment, and there must be some evidence of identity; to prove the chattels to be of the same kind will not do. 2 Russ. on Cr. 125; Roscoe's Cr. Ev. 63.
3. Lost property is not the subject of larceny. Mart. & Y.; 2 Russ. 11, 12.
4. The thing must be proven of some value. 2 Russ. 125; Roscoe's Cr. Ev. 63.
5. It must be proved genuine. 3 Greenl. on Ev.; Whart. Cr. Law, 128.
6. Confessions, to be received, must neither be influenced by hope or fear. His confessions were after inducements were offered by the prosecutor, whch doubtless influenced him at the time. Such evidence ought to be received with great caution. For besides other considerations, it should be recollected that the mind of the prisoner himself is oppressed by the calamity of his situation, and that he is often influenced by motives of hope or fear to make an untrue confession. 1 Greenl. on Ev., sec. 214; Boorn's Case, Vt. 1819, Id., note 2.
A confession without proof of the corpus delicti is not sufficient. 1 Greenl. on Ev., sec. 217. If the note was lost, it was not the subject of larceny. If it was not, then the proof does not show it to be genuine, or of any value, and the body of the offence cannot be shown without them. See Tyner v. The State, 5 H. 383, 385.
John P. Murray, for the prisoner.
This is an indictment against defendant for larceny. There is to the indictment four allegations: First, for stealing a ten-dollar bank-note on the Bank of Tennessee; second, for stealing a ten-dollar bank-note, of the value of ten dollars; third, for stealing a ten-dollar bank-note of the Union Bank; fourth, of the Planters' Bank.
The evidence does not sustain the first, third, and fourth allegation. We contend that the second allegation is an insufficient description of the subject of the offence. See 1 Russ. on Cr. 106; 1 Chitty's Cr. Law, 235; 3 Id. 946; 2 H. P. C. 182, 183; Arch. Cr. Pl. 49; State v. Longbottom, 39.
2. The note must be shown to be genuine by the state, by witnesses acquainted with the money. See 1 Nott. & M. 9; 3 Binn. 533; Steele v. Hickman, 3 Halst. 229; The People v. Coryl, 12 Wend. 547; N. Y. Dig. 372; 3 Greenl. 141, sec. 153.
3. The proof is that the note was lost. Lost property is not the subject of larceny. See Mart. & Y.
4. The confessions of the prisoner should not have been received, as they were forced from the mind by the flattery of hope. See 1 Peck, 143; 2 Tenn. 80-87;9 Humph. 639; 2 Stark. 26-28; 1 Greenl. 221; 1 Ph. 10; Note to 1 Ph. on Ev. 261, p. 431; Roscoe, 43, 44; 2 Russ. 834.
5. We contend that a confession directly inadmissible cannot be admitted for the purpose of raising a presumption against the prisoner; therefore the court erred in admitting proof that the prisoner said in his confession that the bill was an Indiana bill, to contradict his written statement.
6. We contend that there was error in the practice of the judge, in admitting the evidence of Stith, when we offered to show by evidence aliunde that there had been previous promises made to the prisoner to confess. Illegal testimony should never be admitted to go to a jury with view of withdrawing it. It should be rejected on a preliminary examination. See 1 Greenl. 219; Chitty's Cr. Law, 271; McNally, 43; 1 Mass. 144;1 Pick. 477.
The magistrate had no right to interrogate him. See 1 Greenl. 293, sec. 225, note 5.
The indictment in this case contains but one count, which charges the defendant with stealing “one bank-bill on the bank of Tennessee, of the denomination of ten dollars, and of the value of ten dollars; and one ten-dollar bank-note of the value of ten dollars; one bank-note on the Union Bank in Tennessee, of the denomination of ten dollars, and of the value of ten dollars; and one bank-bill on the Planters' Bank in Tennessee, of the denomination of ten dollars, and of the value of ten dollars,” the property of Samuel A. Moore. The defendant was found “guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment,” and prosecuted an appeal in error.
Various questions are raised in the briefs filed by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, upon which we are requested to express our opinion.
1. As respects the sufficiency of the description, in the indictment, of the notes alleged to have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial