Green v. State
| Decision Date | 28 December 1891 |
| Citation | 15 S.E. 10,88 Ga. 516 |
| Parties | GREEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A confession or criminating admission, made by a person in jail to the sheriff and another, the latter of whom had arrested him and brought him to prison on another charge, and who expected a reward in case of a conviction on the charge now in question, is not admissible in evidence where it was induced by a remark made to the prisoner by such third person, in the presence of the sheriff, in these terms "Edmund, if you know anything, it may be best for you to tell it;" or, "Edmund, if you know anything, go and tell it, and it may be best for you." The evidence having been received before this inducement appeared, it having been brought out on cross-examination of the state's witness, a motion then made to withdraw and exclude it from the jury should have been granted.
Error from superior court, Fannin county; GEORGE F. GOBER, Judge.
Prosecution against Edmund Green. Verdict of guilty, and judgment thereon. Defendant brings error. Reversed.
W. T Day and M. J. Jerman, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. R Brown, Sol. Gen., and W. A. Little, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
A careful and laborious examination of a large number of textbooks and decisions touching the admissibility of confessions in evidence in criminal cases shows that the authorities are in considerable conflict, and that it is difficult to draw a precise line between confessions which should be received and those which should be received and those which should be rejected. The tendency of modern judicial opinion is to refuse to admit them when there is any reasonable ground to believe that they were induced by hope or fear. Precisely what words or conduct will constitute such inducement is not easily determined, and differences of opinion concerning the effect and meaning of many expressions, varying in language, but more or less similar in import, have given rise to the conflict mentioned. We do not think it would be profitable now to review and discuss these authorities, either with the view of attempting to harmonize them, or of deducing from them a rule which could be applied to all cases. We shall content ourselves, in this case, with announcing our purpose to adhere closely to the plain mandates of our own statutes as expressed in sections 3792 and 3793 of the Code, and with putting the seal of our condemnation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clay v. State
...Counsel cited, in addition to the authorities mentioned in his original brief, the following cases: People v. Barric, 49 Cal. 342; Green v. State, 88 Ga. 516; Kelly State, 72 Ala. 244; Sorenson v. U.S. 143 F. 820. BEARD, JUSTICE. SCOTT, J., concurs. POTTER, C. J., being absent, did not sit.......