Commonwealth v. Culver
| Decision Date | 08 April 1879 |
| Citation | 126 Mass. 464 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. George A. Culver & another |
Middlesex. Indictment on the Gen. Sts. c. 161, § 12 charging the defendants with breaking and entering, on March 27, 1876, the shop of George M. Crawford, at Ayer, with intent to steal.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Allen J., the government offered to prove confessions made by the defendants. The defendants objected to their admission, on the ground that they were made in consequence of offers of favor made to the defendants by the officer who arrested the defendants and had them in custody; that these offers were carried to the defendants, by request of the officer, before the confessions were made; and that the confessions were induced by the offer.
At the suggestion of the judge, the government called as a witness the officer who made the arrest; and he denied that he made any offers of favor to the defendants, or had caused any offers of favor to be carried to the defendants by others. The defendants then offered to call five different witnesses to prove the truth of their claim, and asked the judge to hear them, and first to determine whether the confessions ought to be received. The judge declined to admit the evidence at that stage of the case, but admitted the confessions.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendants alleged exceptions.
Exceptions Sustained.
T. H Sweetser & G. A. A. Pevey, for the defendants.
J. F. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, (C. R. Train, Attorney General, with him,) for the Commonwealth.
OPINION
The only question which this case presents is, whether it was error in the presiding judge to refuse to hear the evidence offered by the defendants, at the time it was tendered relating to the inducements held out to the defendants for the purpose of obtaining the confessions offered in evidence by the government; and we think it was. There is undoubtedly a large discretion vested in the presiding justice at a trial, in reference to its conduct and to the order of proofs. In this case, when the evidence was offered by the government, it was objected to as incompetent. Its competency was a question of law, and was to be decided by the court. Prima facie, it was competent; but the defendants contended that it was incompetent by reason of certain extrinsic facts. It was for the defendants to establish those facts, and it was the duty of the presiding judge to ascertain whether they existed, before admitting the evidence. It appears by the bill of exceptions, that, when the confessions of the defendants were offered in evidence, they objected to such confessions, upon the ground "that they were made in consequence of offers of favor made to the defendants by the officer who arrested the defendants and had them in custody." If this were true, and the defendants could establish the fact, the confessions were incompetent evidence. It was the duty of the presiding judge to determine that fact, upon hearing all competent evidence upon it which was tendered by either party. In the absence of all evidence, the presumption is that a confession is voluntary; and when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Bright
...As a matter of practice, the jury's role in enforcing each of these exclusionary rules is well established. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Culver, 126 Mass. 464, 466 (1879) (“it is not an uncommon practice ... for the presiding judge to allow ... all the evidence bearing upon the manner in whic......
-
The State v. Spaugh
...that confessions have been freely made until the contrary appears." People v. Barker, 60 Mich. 295; State v. Myers, 99 Mo. 119; Com. v. Culver, 126 Mass. 464; 1 Crim. Law, 571; Roscoe's Crim. Evidence, 43; 3 Rice on Crim. Evid., sec. 309. The fact that the confession was made to an officer ......
-
Com. v. Watkins
...and therefore admissions so obtained have no just and legitimate tendency to prove the facts admitted." Id. at 462-463. In Commonwealth v. Culver, 126 Mass. 464 (1879), we held that, before a defendant's confession could be admitted in evidence, a defendant had the right to a preliminary he......
-
State v. Keller
...made until the contrary appears. State v. Armstrong, 203 Mo. 559; State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 119; People v. Barker, 60 Mich. 295; Com. v. Culver, 126 Mass. 464; Chitty's Crim. Law, 571. FARIS, P. J. Brown and Walker, JJ., concur. OPINION FARIS, P. J. Defendant, prosecuted in Cass county upon a......