Deathridge v. State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1853 |
| Citation | 33 Tenn. 75 |
| Parties | GEO. W. DEATHRIDGE v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
FROM MEIGS.
The plaintiff was indicted in the circuit court of Meigs county for the crime of arson. After several ineffectual efforts to get a jury in Meigs, the venue was changed to the county of Hamilton. At the November term, 1852, of the circuit court of Hamilton (Keith, J., presiding), the plaintiff in error was tried, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for nine years. His motion for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, were made and severally overruled, and he appealed in error to this court. The chief ground of error assigned was that the prisoner was convicted on his own confessions, which were improperly obtained. The manner and matter of the objectionable confessions are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Swan, attorney-general, for the State, cited 2 Russ. on Cr. 861-863; Hudson v. The State, 9 Yerg. 408-410; Rex v. Bryan, 3 C. C. 157; Griffin's Case, 1 Id. 492.
Trewhitt, for the prisoner, cited 1 Greenl. on Ev., secs. 219, 231-233; 2 Russ. on Cr. 826, 239, 827, 832, 229, 862, 863; 2 Humph. 37.
The prisoner was convicted in the circuit court of Hamilton upon a charge of arson. His motion for a new trial was overruled, to which he excepted, and has appealed in error to this court.
The indictment charges, in substance, that the prisoner and Philip Wilson and Geo. Gideon, unlawfully, feloniously, and maliciously, set on fire a store-house, containing $3,000 worth of goods, and that the whole was consumed.
We are to consider the case as it relates to the prisoner, Deathridge.
The errors assigned relate to the ruling of the court below upon questions of evidence.
The prisoner was arrested by Brown, the prosecutor, aided and assisted by Prior Neal and others, who were with him for that purpose. They brought him to a place designated as the “Gate-Post,” thence to “Pin Hook,” and thence to “Ten Mile.” At each of these places confessions were made by the prisoner, and they have been given in evidence against him.
The prosecutor attempted to strike the prisoner with a rock, but was prevented by Neal, who took the prisoner under his protection. Neal then said to the prisoner: They were standing by the “Gate-Post.” Brown came up. “It was said to the prisoner, it was best to turn state's witness, and get out of it.” The prisoner then said:
The party then went with the prisoner to the top of a ridge; the prisoner then pointed to a place where the goods would be found. They went according to his directions, found the goods, and the same were identified, by marks and otherwise, as the goods of the prosecutor.
The prisoner was then taken to “Ten Mile,” and there being confronted with Gideon and Wilson, they mutually criminated each other, both as to the arson and the larceny.
Gideon and Wilson said that “prisoner was equally guilty with them; that he had sent for them, saying ‘a good haul could be made.” This the prisoner denied.
The counsel for the prisoner objected to the evidence, but the same was permitted to go to the jury.
1. There can be no question but that the evidence was incompetent.
If a confession be free and voluntary; if it appear to proceed merely from a sense of guilt, and not from the influence of hope or fear in any degree, it is competent evidence. Great weight and credit are justly due to a confession of this kind; for we are to presume, in the absence of influence and motive, a person who is innocent of crime will not confess himself guilty. But if the confession be the result of hope or fear, induced or excited by a person having power over the prisoner, it becomes incompetent; for in such case it can have no tendency to prove that the prisoner is guilty of the crime. A person not of strong character, overawed and subdued by a criminal charge, involving the ruin of himself and all dependent upon him, may, under influence, confess himself guilty, when in fact he is innocent.
The law, having...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee
...had resulted in a degree of irritability which had made them incompatible and resulted in his sexual frustration. 2 Deathridge v. State, 1 Sneed 75, 33 Tenn. 75; Strady v. State, 5 Cold. 300, 45 Tenn. 300; Self v. State, 6 Baxt. 244, 65 Tenn. 244; Cross v. State, 142 Tenn. 510, 221 S.W. 489......
-
State v. Schlise, 77-322-CR
...Thompson v. Comm., 20 Grat. (Va.) 724; State v. Drake, 82 N.C. 592; People v. Johnson, 41 Cal. 452; State v. Brown, 73 Mo. 631; Deathridge v. State, 33 Tenn. 75; Mackmasters v. State, 82 Miss. 459, 34 So. 156; Smith v. State, 74 Ark. 397, 85 S.W. 1123; Comm. v. Sheets, 197 Pa. 69, 46 A. 753......
-
State v. John J. Cocklin
... ... 404, 407, 136 N.E. 766; ... Rusher v. State, 94 Ga. 363, 21 S.E. 593, ... 47 Am. St. Rep. 175; Comm. v. Knapp, 26 ... Mass. 496, 511, 20 Am. Dec. 491; Laros v ... Comm., 84 Pa. 200, 209; Shufflin v ... State, 122 Ark. 606, 184 S.W. 454; Duffy v ... People, 26 N.Y. 588; Deathridge v ... State, 33 Tenn. 75; State v ... Winston, 116 N.C. 990, 21 S.E. 37; State v ... Danelly, 116 S.C. 113, 107 S.E. 149, 14 A.L.R. 1420, ... and many other cases. Since it is an open question with us, ... we adopt this rule ... ... Assuming then, but not deciding, ... ...
-
State v. Childress
...574, 584-85 (1884) (recognizing that a "voluntary confession of guilt is among the most effectual proofs in the law"); Deathridge v. State, 33 Tenn. 75, 78-79 (1853) (noting that "[g]reat weight and credit are justly due to a confession" that is "free and voluntary" because "we are to presu......