Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 08 October 1925 |
| Citation | 105 So. 843,90 Fla. 317 |
| Parties | DAVIS et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Duval County; James M. Peeler Judge.
Marvin Davis, Walter Davis, Clinton H. Peeler, and George Jacobs were convicted of breaking into and entering a building with intent to commit a misdemeanor and petty larceny, and they bring error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Voluntary confession admissible, though not spontaneous utterance. It is well settled that, to render a confession by one charged with crime admissible in evidence against him, it must be voluntarily made, though it may not be the spontaneous utterance of the one charged, and it may be obtained by questioning in custody of an officer, or in jail.
Trial court's determination of question whether confession is voluntary presumed correct. The question of whether or not a confession is voluntary is one for the trial judge to determine, and even though the evidence as to voluntariness be conflicting, if called upon to review the ruling of the trial court, the appellate court must indulge the presumption that the finding was correct.
Credibility of evidence as to voluntary nature of confessions is question for trial court. Circumstances constituting improper influences that would exclude confessions present questions of law reviewable by the appellate court, but the credibility of the evidence to prove the circumstances, and the credibility of conflicting evidence, are questions for the determination of the trial court, unless error in the conclusion in the court below is manifest.
Accused has burden to rebut proof confessions are voluntary. When the state has proven the confessions to be free and voluntary the burden is then cast on the defendant to rebut this proof.
Right of state to argue character of evidence adduced by it not taken away by statute forbidding comment on accused's failure to testify. The pre-existing right of the state to argue the character of evidence adduced by it has not been taken away by the statute permitting the accused to be a witness, and forbidding the state to comment upon his failure to accept the privilege. The state still has the right to direct the attention of the jury to that portion of the evidence as to which there is conflict; so long as the state does not exercise its preexisting right, so as to make it directly or covertly a comment upon the failure of the accused to voluntarily become a witness, the law is not violated.
McNamee, Wilson & Koester, of Jacksonville, for plaintiffs in error.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and J. B. Gaines, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Marvin Davis, Walter Davis, Clinton H. Peeler, and George Jacobs were informed against in the criminal court of record of Duval county, December 16, 1924, for breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. They were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and petty larceny. Marvin Davis was sentenced to confinement in the county jail of Duval county at hard labor for the period of one day, and Walter Davis Clinton H. Peeler, and George Jacobs each were sentenced to hard labor in the state penitentiary for the term of five years. Motion for new trial was denied, and writ of error taken to this court.
Assignments of error 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 treat the question of whether or not the confessions of the several plaintiffs in error were in law voluntarily made and properly admitted in evidence.
The law is well settled that, to render a confession by one charged with a crime admissible in evidence against him, it must be voluntarily made, though it may not be the spontaneous utterance of the one charged, and it may be obtained by questioning in the custody of an officer or in jail. The jury may always consider the method and circumstances under which a confession is obtained in determining its credibility. Underhill on Criminal Evidence (2d Ed.) 140; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 So. 176; McDonald v. State, 70 Fla. 250, 70 So. 24; Phillips v. State, 88 Fla. 117, 101 So. 204.
The question of whether or not a confession is voluntary is one for the trial judge to determine, and even though the evidence as to voluntariness be conflicting, if called upon to review the ruling of the trial court, the appellate court must indulge the presumption that the finding was correct. Circumstances constituting improper influences that would exclude confessions are questions of law, reviewable by the appellate court, but the credibility of the evidence to prove the circumstances, and the credibility of conflicting evidence, are questions for the determination of the trial court, not reviewable by the appellate court, unless error in the conclusion in the court below is manifest. Thomas v State, 58 Fla. 122, 51 So. 410. $The testimony of the state and defendants as to whether or not the several confessions were free and voluntary was in hopeless conflict, but the whole matter was rehearsed. both in the absence and in the presence of the jury, as the practice here approves,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nickels v. State
...198; Williams v. State, 48 Fla. 65, 37 So. 521; Moore v. State, 68 Fla. 91, 66 So 431; McDonald V. State, 70 Fla. 250, 70 So. 24; Davis v. State, 105 So. 843, decided at this That the confession was in fact so made should appear prima facie before it is admitted in evidence. Statements made......
-
Flowers v. State
... ... Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. 851; McNish ... v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 So. 176; Sims v ... State, 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. 198; Williams v ... State, 48 Fla. 65, 37 So. 521; Moore v. State, ... 68 Fla. 91, 66 So. 431; McDonald v. State, 70 Fla ... 250, 70 So. 24; Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 317, 105 ... So.843; Chambers v. State of Florida, 309 U.S. 227, ... 60 S.Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716; Bram v. United States, ... 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568; Ziang Sung Wan ... v. United States, 266 U.S. 1, 45 S.Ct. 1, 69 L.Ed. 131; ... White v. Texas, 310 ... ...
-
Brown v. State
...confession, then such confessions are admissible in evidence. See Moore v. State, 68 Fla. 91, 66 So. 431. In the case of Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 317, 105 So. 843, this Court had before it a confession of a defendant with crime, and said [page 844]: 'The law is well settled that, to render a......
-
Clay v. State
... ... See ... Bennett v. State, 96 Fla. 237, 118 So. 18; ... Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479; ... Green v. State, 40 Fla. 474, 24 So. 537; Browne ... v. State, 92 Fla. 699, 109 So. 811; Williams v ... State, 48 Fla. 65, 37 So. 521; Davis v. State, ... 90 Fla. 317, 105 So. 843; Sims v. State, 59 Fla. 38, ... 52 So. 198; Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237, 23 So ... 857; Holland v. State, 39 Fla. 178, 22 So. 298. It ... is likewise the law of Florida that if an alleged confession ... was not freely and voluntarily made, it is error ... ...