Ellis v. State

• Decision Date: 14 November 1887
• Citation: Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44, 3 So. 188 (Miss. 1887)
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: MOSE ELLIS v. THE STATE

3 So. 188

65 Miss. 44

MOSE ELLIS v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 14, 1887

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Madison County, HON. T. J. WHARTON Judge.

Moses Ellis was indicted and tried for arson. On the trial the State introduced in evidence the confessions of the defendant. The defendant adduced evidence before the jury which tended to show that the confessions were given under the influence of threats and fear. After all the evidence was in, the defendant moved to exclude the confessions on the ground that they were extracted by the use of undue influence. The court refused to exclude them.

The bill of exceptions shows that in the argument "counsel for the defendant argued that the confessions of defendant were made by fear and threats; and in reply to this the district attorney, in his argument to the jury, stated that the court in deciding that the confessions were admissible had necessarily decided that they were freely and voluntarily made; that the question whether the confessions were freely and voluntarily made or not, was not a question for the jury to consider, but a question for the court to determine; that the court had decided them admissible, and therefore freely and voluntarily made, and that the jury could not consider that question, but that they were the judges of the weight and value of the testimony concerning the confessions, and might believe or disbelieve, as they thought the witnesses entitled to credit or otherwise. If they believed the testimony true with reference to the confessions, then they would give them just such weight in determining the defendant's guilt or innocence as they deemed them entitled to."

"The defendant's counsel objected to these statements of the district attorney, and appealed to the court to correct him. The court stated that it saw nothing improper in the statements of the district attorney and refused to interfere."

The defendant excepted.

The court refused an instruction asked by defendant as follows:

"2. The jury may consider the admissions made by defendant, and will give them such weight as they may deem them entitled to under all the circumstances of the case, and if the jury believe from the evidence that the confessions of defendant were brought about by fear and were not true, they will disregard them."

The defendant was convicted, and appealed from the judgment against him.

Reversed and remanded.

F. B Pratt, for the appellant.

The second instruction asked by defendant was refused by the court, which refusal virtually announced to the jury the startling proposition that they were bound to take the defendant's confessions as true, because they had been admitted in evidence, even though they, the jury, should believe they were absolutely false and untrue. This proposition has the merit of extreme novelty to say the least.

Says Campbell, C. J., in Simmons v. State, 61 Miss. 243: "It was material to the prisoner's defense that the jury should hear what he felt and thought as explanatory of his confessions. If his confessions were true, they authorized his conviction; if false, and made for a purpose, if prompted by hope or fear, the jury should have opportunity to learn it, so as to place a proper value upon them."

In Garrard v. State, 50 Miss. 147, Peyton, C. J., says: "The conflict of testimony in this case raises a question of fact, whether any inducements were held out to procure the confession, and that question was very properly left to the jury." * * * *

Whether there was any inducement held out to the defendant was within the province of the jury to decide.

In the above case the court instructed the jury that confessions made by the prisoner under influence of fear or hope of reward are not sufficient to convict unless there is other evidence sufficient to satisfy the mind of the jury, etc.

This instruction was approved by this court.

The rule is well stated in Com. v. Knapp, 10 Pick. 477.

F. B. Pratt also made an oral argument.

T. M. Miller, Attorney-General, for the State, argued the case orally, confessing error as to the action of the court below in refusing the second intsruction asked by the appellant, but controverting the other points urged for the appellant.

OPINION

ARNOLD, J.

Before a confession is received in evidence against a defendant in a criminal trial, it should be shown that it was voluntary that is to say,...