Bates v. State

• Citation: 78 Fla. 672,84 So. 373
• Parties: BATES v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 17 December 1919
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

84 So. 373

78 Fla. 672

BATES v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

December 17, 1919

Error to Circuit Court, Polk County; John S. Edwards, Judge.

Henry Bates was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, and he brings error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Before admissions made by a party while under arrest can be introduced in evidence, the court should determine the principal question of whether the admissions were free and voluntary.

Whether admissions or confessions are freely and voluntarily made is a question for the court, and the duty is imposed upon it to determine this question before permitting it to go to the jury.

The question of whether an admission is freely and voluntarily made is for the court to determine, and it is not a matter of the opinion of the witness. The proper method is to have the witness state the circumstances under which they were made so that the court and not the witness may determine if they were free and voluntary. This investigation should be made in the absence of the jury.

The admissibility of a confession, where it is challenged, is a question solely for the court after hearing, in the absence of the jury, all the evidence on each side respecting the manner in which the confession was obtained.

After a confession has been admitted, the defendant is entitled to have the evidence in regard to the manner in which it was obtained given anew to the jury, not that the jury may pass upon its admissibility, but for the purpose of enabling them to judge what weight and value should be given to it as evidence; and upon his request the defendant is entitled to an instruction on that point.

If after the introduction of a confession, it appears by the subsequent testimony of the defendant that such confession was not freely and voluntarily made, the court should arrest the examination and withdraw the evidence of such confession from the jury.

A charge that assumes a material fact to have been proven, when there is conflict in the proof as to such fact, is erroneous.

A 'confession' is an admission of guilt and not an admission of a fact or circumstance from which guilt may be inferred.

COUNSEL Wilson & Boswell, of Bartow, for plaintiff in error.

Van C. Swearingen, Atty. Gen., and D. Stuart Gillis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

BROWNE C.J.

The defendant in error, Henry Bates, was convicted of breaking and entering, with intent to commit a felony. The testimony establishes that the office of the Union Passenger Depot at Bartow was broken into; that nothing was taken out of the office; than an axe kept in the corner of the colored waiting room was missing, but the testimony does not show when it was taken, but only that it was usually kept 'in the corner of the colored waiting room.'

The prisoner was arrested at his father's home and taken in custody by three officers. His connection with the breaking and entering was sought to be established by admissions made by him after he was under arrest. An envelope with the name J. H. Wingate, Plant City, Florida, on it, which Mr. Wingate gave the defendant the day before, was found on the floor of the office that had been broken into. While the witness was under arrest, he was interrogated about this envelope, and it is claimed he admitted that a man had given him his address on an envelope, and when it was shown to him he said it was the envelope and that he had it in his vest pocket. The other circumstance connecting the prisoner with the offense was his alleged admission that nobody went in the passenger depot office with him, and that he pulled the bolts off, and that the only thing he used was an axe and a screwdriver, and that he put the axe in Mr. Ryal's yard.

The disposition of this case hinges upon the question of whether the admissions by the prisoner were free and voluntary, and whether or not the court erred in one of the instructions to the jury. Without the evidence of the alleged admissions of highly incriminating facts, there was no evidence from which a verdict of guilty could have been found. The rule seems to be well settled in this and other jurisdictions that, before admissions made by a party while under arrest can be introduced in evidence, the court should determine the principal question of whether the admissions were free and voluntary. Green v. State, 40 Fla 474, 24 So. 537; Murray v. State, 25 Fla. 528, 6 So 498; Coffee v. State, 25 Fla. 501, 6 So. 493, 23 Am. St. Rep. 525; People v. Loper, 159 Cal. 6, 112 P. 720, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1193; Sykes v. State, 82 So. 778.

It is contended by the state that, because the plaintiff in error did not object to the introduction of this testimony upon the ground that the admissions were not freely and voluntarily made, this court cannot consider its nonadmissibility. Whether admissions or confessions are freely and voluntarily made is a question for the court, and the duty is imposed upon it to determine this question before permitting it to go to the jury. The introduction of this testimony was subjected to by defendant, and sufficient grounds were stated to call this to the court's attention. The duty then devolved upon the court to make the investigation.

The question propounded to the first witness for the state in relation to the admission was:

'Did Henry Bates, the defendant here, voluntarily and freely without any threats from you, or without any inducement held out to him, or any threats from any one, make a statement to you concerning the breaking and entering of the passenger depot here at Bartow?'

We think it well at this point to call attention to the impropriety of this and similar questions where admissions by parties under arrest are sought to be introduced in evidence. The question of whether an admission is freely and voluntarily made is for the court to determine, and it is not a matter of the opinion of the witness. The proper method is to have the witness state the circumstances under which they were made so that the court and not the witness may determine if they were free and voluntary. This investigation should be made in the absence of the jury.

The rule in most jurisdictions is that----

'The admissibility of a confession, where it is challenged, is a question solely for the court after hearing, in the absence of the jury, all the evidence on each side respecting the manner in which the confession was obtained; and the court is necessarily vested with a large discretion in determining the matter, a discretion, however, which should be exercised with great care to the end that the due and proper enforcement of the law on the one hand be not impeded, and that no injustice be done the defendant on the other. * * * After a confession has been admitted, the defendant is entitled to have the evidence in regard to the manner in which it was obtained given anew to the jury, not that the jury may pass upon its admissibility, but for the purpose of enabling them to judge what weight and value should be given to it as evidence; and upon his request the defendant is entitled to an instruction on that point.' Berry v. State, 4 Okl. Cr. 202, 111 P. 676, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 849; 1 R. C. L. pp. 579, 580.

In the case of Harrold v. Oklahoma, 169 F. 47, 94 C. C. A. 415, 17 Ann. Cas. 868, the court said:

'Was it error for the trial court to permit the introduction before the jury in the prosecutor's case of the testimony upon the question whether or not the confession was free and voluntary? It was not the province of the jury to consider or determine that issue. It was the duty of the court alone to hear and decide it. The burden was upon the prosecutor to prove to the court that the confession was voluntary that it was not influenced by compulsion, hope, fear, or other inducement of any sort, and, if the evidence failed to establish...