Banks v. State
| Decision Date | 02 November 1908 |
| Docket Number | 13,398 |
| Citation | 47 So. 437,93 Miss. 700 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | SOLOMON BANKS v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
FROM the circuit court of Yazoo county, FROM. WILEY H. POTTER Judge.
Banks appellant, was indicted for arson; the indictment charging that he "did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously set fire to and burn a certain dwelling house then and there situated," etc. Appellant demurred to this indictment because it was not alleged that some one resided therein either in the daytime or at night, nor that the setting fire thereto was in the daytime or night. The court below overruled the demurrer, holding the indictment to be good under Code 1906, § 1040, which is as follows:
On the trial the defendant objected to the admission in evidence of two confessions, made by him shortly after his arrest because they were not free and voluntary. The defendant being convicted appealed to the supreme court. The facts are further stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
Campbell & Campbell, for appellant.
The indictment alleges that the house burned was a dwelling house but does not allege that any one was living in it, or usually resided there, at the time it was burned.
The only code section under which it can be pretended that the indictment is good is Code 1906, § 1040, but defendant is guilty of no offense under it for the reason that it was intended to cover "Any other house or building not embraced and provided for in the preceding sections" (quoting from the language of this section). And further the class and character of building enumerated, such as churches, school houses, gins, etc., furnish abundant proof that it was not the intention to cover a case like this one.
While it is true that there should be some provision made to cover such a case as this record presents, yet, there is no such provision in the code, and the defendant is entitled to a strict construction of the law as written.
The first confession was made to Morris White in the presence of George V. Warren, the magistrate, Sunday evening.
In the case of Johnson v. State, 89 Miss. 773, 42 So. 606, this court held such a confession to be inadmissible. Such is the settled law of this state.
The learned trial judge excluded properly this confession, made Sunday evening.
The confession made the next day practically to the same parties should have been excluded from the jury, because it was the duty of the state to prove beyond every reasonable doubt that the hope of obtaining his liberty, or of lighter punishment, which the testimony clearly shows was held out to the defendant, was completely and absolutely eradicated from the mind of the defendant. Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44, 3 So. 188; State v. Smith, 72 Miss. 420, 18 So. 482.
George Butler, assistant attorney general, for appellee. Appellant was indicted under Code 1906, § 1040.
The demurrer was overruled and properly so. The indictment was good under the section above mentioned. Dick v. State, 53 Miss. 384.
After having made the first confession accused was warned that he was, in the language of one of the witnesses, "knocking at the door of the penitentiary."
On Monday morning after the previous confession and warnings the day before and without any inducement whatever he stated to the same parties that he burned the house and told them his reasons therefor, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owen v. State
...... . . Ellis. v. State, 65 Miss. 44; Williams v. State, 72 Miss. 117; State v. Smith, 72 Miss. 420; Whip v. State, 143 Miss. 757; Ammons v. State, 80 Miss. 592; Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 196; Jones v. State, 133 Miss. 684; Banks v. State, 93 Miss. 700; 1 Greenl. Evidence 221; Peter v. State, 4 Sm. &. M. 31; Van Buren v. State, 24 Miss. 516;. Simon v. State, 37 Miss. 288; Whitley v. State, 78 Miss. 255; 1 Wigmore on Evidence, 986;. State v. Smith, 72 Miss. 420; Harvey v. State, 20 So. 837; Fisher v. ......
-
Pullen v. State
...... takes away the freedom of the mind may arise solely from. conditions and circumstances surrounding the confessor. . . Fisher. v. State, 145 Miss. 116, 110 So. 361; Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 196, 65 So. 218; Jones v. State, 133 Miss. 684, 98 So. 150; Banks v. State, 93. Miss. 700, 47 So. 437. . . It is a. general rule that a confession should not be admitted if. there is any reasonable doubt as to whether it was freely and. voluntarily made, and after its admission, if the testimony. as a whole creates such a doubt, then it should ......
-
Brown v. State
...6 So. 493; Frank v. State, 39 Miss. 705; Peter v. State, 4 S. & M. 31; Simon v. State, 37 Miss. 388; Mathews v. State, 59 So. 842; Banks v. State, 47 So. 437; State Smith, 18 So. 482; White v. State, 91 So. 150; Sweat Box case, 32 So. 9; 28 So. 852; Stubbs v. State, 114 So. 827; Lofton v. S......
-
Brown v. State
...6 So. 493; Frank v. State, 39 Miss. 705; Peter v. State, 4 S. & M. 31; Simon v. State, 37 Miss. 388; Mathews v. State, 59 So. 842; Banks v. State, 47 So. 437; State Smith, 18 So. 482; White v. State, 91 So. 150-Sweat Box case, 32 So. 9; 28 So. 852; Stubbs v. State, 114 So. 827; Lofton v. St......