Coffee v. State

• Decision Date: 21 August 1889
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: COFFEE v. STATE.

6 So. 493

25 Fla. 501

COFFEE v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

August 21, 1889

Error to circuit court, Marion county; J. J. FINLEY, Judge.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. When a person charged with crime is brought before a justice of the peace or other officer for preliminary examination, it is the duty of the officer to caution the accused that any statement or confession he may make may be used against him and to inform him of his rights in the premises.

2. Before the confessions of a party charged with crime are admissible in evidence against him, it must be clearly shown that such confessions were free and voluntary, and the confessions of the accused should be acted upon by courts and juries with great caution. ^[1]

3. When a confession has been obtained through illegal influences such influences will be presumed to continue and color all subsequent confessions, unless the contrary is clearly shown.

4. The defendant was in the custody of a guard, (who were armed,) charged with the murder of one Hammond. A rope was placed around his neck by the guard, who took him from where an inquest was being held over the remains supposed to be Hammond's, carried to the woods not far off, the end of the rope thrown over a limb, and the defendant was then told that his last hour had come; that he had to tell all about the crime with which he was charged. The accused denied all knowledge of the crime. The guard then tightened on the rope let the accused down, and he against denied all knowledge of the crime. The rope was again tightened, and the prisoner then said if they would give him two minutes he would tell all he knew, and he then confessed that he was guilty, and the guard forced him to promise that he would 'stick' to what he then said, and that he would stick to it in court. The guard then carried the prisoner before the inquest, where there was great excitement, and talk of lynching, and he again confessed. The next day he was carried before a justice of the peace for preliminary examination, and there, in the presence of two of the guards whom he had promised to stick to what he first said, without counsel, without any caution by the justice, without being informed as to his rights, he again confessed. Held, that it is not clearly shown that the confession at the preliminary examination was not made under the influences that induced the previous confessions.

COUNSEL O. T. Green, for plaintiff in error.

William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

MITCHELL J.

The plaintiff in error was jointly indicted with Paul Barco and Holmes Jacobs for the murder of Henry B. Hammond, and the case was tried at a special term of the circuit court of Marion county, in the month of January, 1889. A severance was granted, and the plaintiff in error alone was tried. The issues were submitted to a jury, who convicted Coffee of murder in the first degree, and the sentence of death was passed upon him, and he now brings his case before this court on a writ of error, and assigns the following errors:

'(1) The court erred in allowing the confession of the plaintiff in error, made at Martel, Fla., to go to the jury against the objection of the plaintiff in error, it being evident that said confession was not voluntary, having been induced by fear or the hope of favor.

'(2) The court erred in overruling the motion of the plaintiff in error to exclude the confessions of the plaintiff in error from the jury; it being evident it was not voluntary, and there being no evidence to remove the presumption that the influences inducting the first two confessions continued.

'(3) The court erred in overruling the plaintiff in error's motion for a new trial. The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth grounds in said motion are not insisted on.'

The evidence set up in the transcript of the record tends to show that on the 13th day of June, 1888, a difficulty occurred between the plaintiff in error, Coffee, and Henry B. Hammond at Cotton Plant, in Marion county. The difficulty occurred about a small sum of money which Coffee claimed Hammond owed him. Coffee demanded the amount of Hammond, who refused to pay it, saying that he was entitled to a credit of 30 cents. Angry words ensued, each of the parties cursing the other, when they clinched, and fell upon the ground, when Coffee struck Hammond several times with the handle or staff of a buggy-whip. Some other party interfered, and the parties engaged in the fight were separated; and Hammond, who was on the bottom in the fight, after getting up seized a piece of board, when Coffee hurriedly left, going in the direction of his home, saying at the time either that he had given Hammond h---l, or that he would give him h---l. That Hammond was at the time clerking for one Fant, at Cotton Plant, and that he slept in a back room of the store where he was clerking. That some time from 1 to 3 o'clock on the morning after the difficulty between Coffee and Hammond, Fant's store was discovered to be on fire. That it had nearly burned down at daylight, when the first persons visited the place. That there were in the ruins of the store--the back part, or shedroom, where Hammond slept--the charred remains of a human being, so disfigured that none of the witnesses were able to recognize them. The skull was whole, with the exception of a hole in the front, which one of the witnesses says was burned. Some 10 feet from where the remains were found, in searching in the fire, some one found the watch and chain usually worn by Hammond, both of which were smoked, and the watch partly melted, the hands of which showed that it ceased to run at 3 o'clock. That, owing to the difficulty between Coffee and Hammond on the previous day, suspicion attached to Coffee, and parties set out to arrest him, and they found him concealed in the loft of a house. He was arrested and carried to Cotton Plant, where the store was burned, and where there was an inquest being held by the coroner and jury over the remains found at the store. The inquest was not closed that day, but adjourned to the next, and the prisoner was kept under guard. The inquest convened at about 8 o'clock the next morning, and proceeded with the investigation, and during the time the investigation was going on the guard (four men) who had the prisoner in charge put a rope with a slipnoose around his neck, and carried him to the woods, about one-fourth of a mile from where the inquest was being held, when they threw the other end of the rope which was around the neck of the prisoner over a limb, and told him (the prisoner) to tell what he knew about the crime with which he was charged. He said he knew nothing, when the guard tightened on the rope, and then asked the prisoner if he would tell what he knew about the killing of Hammond and the burning of the store, but he again said that he knew nothing, when the rope was again tightened, and the prisoner then said if they would give him two minutes he would tell all that he knew about it. The guard told him to tell the truth, and to stick to it; that he had to stick to what he then said, and that he had to stick to it in court, which the prisoner promised to do. There was also some evidence tending to show that there were threats made bt the guard, all of whom were armed with Winchester rifles or double-barreled shotguns, that if the prisoner did not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and stick to it, he would be killed. That, after the prisoner agreed to confess, the guard carried him back to where the inquesition was being held, and informed the jury, or the magistrate, who was acting as coroner, that the prisoner was ready to confess. That the prisoner looked like he had passed a sleepless night. That the jury took a recess for the purpose of allowing the prisoner time to reflect, and to take some refreshments. That after partaking of watermelons as refreshments the prisoner was taken before the jury, and then and there made his statement, confessing his complicity in the killing of Hammond, and the burning of Fant's store. That there was great excitement among the large crowd of people who had assembled at the place at the time. That a gun had been fired by a party, who shot himself through his toe; and that there had been talk of lynching the perpetrators of the supposed murder. That in this first confession the prisoner stated that McCullough had killed Hammond, and that he and Bostock were present, aiding and assisting McCullough. After this statement the inquest was adjourned for the purpose of giving time to arrest Bostock and McCullough. That they were arrested, and, the coroner's jury being assembled, the prisoner was required to repeat his statement in the presence of Bostock and McCullough, which he did repeat. That on the night of the second day of the proceedings the defendant, with the other parties whom he had implicated in his confession, Bostock and McCullough, were taken to jail at Ocala, and that on the following day the prisoners were taken to Martel, about three and a half miles from Cotton Plant, where the coroner's inquest was held, for a preliminary hearing before H. H. HUGGINS, a justice of the peace, and who had acted as coroner at the inquest. That before he made his confession at Martel, the prisoner was cautioned by Mr. Long that any statement he made would be used against him; and that he (the prisoner) was assured by Mr. Long and Mr. Harrison that he would be protected in any statement he might make. That the law and the citizens would protect him. That he (Harrison) relied upon his influence in the community to protect the prisoner, but he admitted on cross-examination that he could not protect him. That the...