Daniels v. State

• Decision Date: 23 February 1909
• Citation: 57 Fla. 1,48 So. 747
• Parties: DANIELS et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

48 So. 747

57 Fla. 1

DANIELS et al. v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

February 23, 1909

Error to Circuit Court, Walton County; J. Emmet Wolfe, Judge.

Mose Daniels, Luther Russ, and Silas Daniels were convicted of murder in the first degree, and they bring error. Affirmed as to Mose Daniels, and reversed as to Luther Russ and Silas Daniels.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

When there are two or more defendants in a criminal prosecution and order of the trial court granting or denying a motion for severance is largely discretionary, and in general will not be disturbed by an appellate court when the motion is unsupported and no abuse of discretion appears.

Before statements made at a coroner's inquest by a person when in custody of the sheriff can be shown in evidence against the defendant on his trial, it should clearly appear that he was fully advised of his rights in making the statements, and that, after being so advised, the statements were voluntarily made.

Testimony as to confessions of guilt, as distinguished from mere statements of other facts, should be received in evidence on a trial with caution, especially where the party is under arrest when the confession is made; and testimony as to confessions of guilt made to officers or when under arrest is not admissible in evidence at the trial, unless it is clearly shown that the confession was voluntarily made after the party is fully advised of his rights under the law.

A confession of guilt in committing a crime is an acknowledgment of the criminal act or of the facts that constitute the crime. Statements of facts or circumstances that do not in effect or by inference admit the commission of a crime do not in general constitute a confession of guilt of a crime.

Statements other than confessions of guilt of a crime are in general admissible in evidence against the party making them as other admissions against interest; but, where the statements are made before a magistrate by a person when under arrest accused of the crime, evidence of such statements is in general not admissible unless it appears that the party was advised of his rights, and then voluntarily made the statements.

In a prosecution for murder, evidence tending to show motive is admissible for that purpose.

Where evidence as to a confession made by one of several defendants who are being tried jointly implicates the other defendants who were not persent when the confession was made, the court should then instruct the jury to disregard the reference in the confession to the defendants not present when the confession was made.

COUNSEL Daniel Campbell & Son, for plaintiffs in error.

Park M Trammell, Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

WHITFIELD, C.J.

The plaintiffs in error were convicted of murder in the first degree. Mose Daniels was sentenced to be hanged. Luther Russ and Silas Daniels, being recommended to mercy, were sentenced to the penitentiary for life. Writ of error was taken. At the trial the court denied a motion by Silas Daniels and Luther Russ for severance upon the grounds (1) that Mose Daniels had confessed his guilt and implicated movants; (2) that movants have a defense separate from that Mose Daniels may have; (3) that confessions of Mose Daniels implicating movants will be improper and injurious to movants. This motion was not supported by affidavit or otherwise.

While subsequent developments of the trial indicate that it would have been advisable to grant the severance, the court will not be held in error for denying the unsupported motion, since the granting or denial of a motion for severance is largely discretionary, and such rulings will not in general be disturbed where the motion is unsupported and no abuse of discretion is shown. See Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 So. 474.

Separate statements of testimony given and signed by Silas Daniels and Luther Russ at the coroner's inquest while in the custody of the sheriff were admitted in evidence over objection by the defendants. The parties were taken from jail three times and examined before the coroner. It appears that they were not advised of their rights each time they were examined, and it does not appear that the statements offered in evidence were made at the time the parties were advised of their rights as to testifying.

While the testimony of Silas Daniels was expressly admitted as evidence against him and for no other purpose, the testimony of Luther Russ was not admitted solely as evidence against him. Before statements made before the coroner by a person when in custody of the sheriff can be shown in evidence against him on his trial, it should clearly appear that he was fully advised of his rights in making the statements, and that, after being so advised, the statements were voluntarily made. See Jenkins v. State, 35 Fla. 737, 18 So. 182, 48 Am. St. Rep. 267.

Testimony as to confessions of guilt as distinguished from mere statements of other facts should be received in evidence on a trial with caution especially where the party is under arrest when the confession is made; and testimony as to confessions of guilt made to officers or when under arrest is not admissible in evidence at the trial, unless it is clearly shown that the confession was voluntarily made after the party is fully advised of his rights under the law. See Green v. State, 40 Fla. 474, 24 So. 537; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 So. 176.

A confession of guilt in committing a crime is an...