Gunter v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1938 |
| Docket Number | 33044 |
| Citation | 178 So. 472,180 Miss. 769 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | GUNTER v. STATE |
Suggestion Of Error Overruled February 14, 1938.
APPEAL from the circuit court of Lee county HON. THOS. H. JOHNSTON Judge.
Preston Gunter was convicted of arson, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
J. W. P. Boggau, of Tupelo, for appellant.
The statement included in the confession that appellant is claimed to have made, wherein he is charged with admitting the stealing of a gallon of whiskey was erroneous and ought to have been excluded from the evidence in the indictment.
In criminal prosecution, generally, evidence which tends to show accused's commission of separate and distinct crimes is not admissible.
McLin v. State, 116 So. 533, 150 Miss. 159; Willoughby v. State, 122 So. 757, 154 Miss. 653, 63 A. L. R. 1319; Floyd v. State, 148 So. 226, 166 Miss. 15.
It has been held by this court that where a sale of whiskey is charged to have been made on or about a specified day that two distinct sales cannot be offered in evidence.
Robins v. State, 118 So. 535, 151 Miss. 529.
Introduction of evidence of more than one offense in prosecution for manufacture of liquor held erroneous.
Calloway v. State, 121 So. 292, 153 Miss. 599; Craft v. State, 124 So. 488, 155 Miss. 465.
The fact that the appellant may have stolen some whiskey had no com lection whatever with the burning of the house with which the appellant was charged.
It is the contention of the appellant that the corpus delicti was not proven, in thai: it did not show that the fire, wtfich destroyed the house of Rollie Deaton and wife, Mrs. Rollie Deaton, was the restllt of a criminal agency, but that the evidence in this case, outside of the confession of the appellant, indicated that the fire was the result of the defective wiring of the house.
On the trial of criminal cases, a confession by the accused may be considered together with other evidence to establish the corpus delicti, provided such other evidence is of sufficient character as will satisfy the minds that it is a real and not an imaginary crime which the accused has confessed.
Walker v. State, 89 So. 921, 12'7 Miss. 246; Barton v. State, 71 So. 374, 111 Miss. 231.
In the case of Ratcliff v. State, 54 So. 947, 99 Miss. 277., the court held that a conviction of arson must be reversed, though the burning was clearly shown, where the only evidence other than accused's claimed confession, tending to show criminal agency, consisted of slight circumstances.
The fact of burning does not establish corpus delicti of unlawful burning.
Rayborn v. State, 76 So. 639, 115 Miss. 730; Holloman v. State, 117 So. 532, 151 Miss. 202; Whitaker v. State, 142 So. 474.
W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for appellee.
Appellant states here that the confession which was offered in evidence was not admissible because it ineluded and referred to a separate and independent offense. It is a generaI rule that a confession containing admission of guilt of a separate offense and independent of the one being inquired into is not admissible.
Baygents v. State, 144 Miss. 442, 110. So. 114; McLaiu v. State, 150 Miss. 159, 116 So. 533.
This rule with reference to confessions merely conforms to the general rule that the state is confined to proof alone of the crime charged in the indictment.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the part of the confession here complained of was not competent, the balance of it relating to the crime being inquired into was competent and it was the duty of appellant to be specific enough to point out that part of the profferetl evidence which he deemed objectionable and require the court to rule on it. Failure to do this will estop him from doing so in this court for the first time, this court being one of review only.
Lipscomb v. State, 75 Miss. 559, 23 So. 210; Wilkinson v. State, 134 Miss. 853, 98 So. 770; Whittington v. State, 160 Miss. 705, 136 So. 190; Wright v. State, 82 Miss. 421, 34 So. 4; Wampold v. State, 155 So. 350.
It has been held many times by this court that where there has been a confession, any corroborative proof showing that the crime which the accused has confessed is real and not an imaginary one, is sufficient to establish the corpus delicti. In other words, where there has been a confession, the proof of the corpus delicti need be established only to a probability and where such proof, coupled with the confession, establishes it beyond a reasonable doubt, then the corpus delicti was sufficiently proved to admit the confession. There must be proof aliunde the confession, but it need only be slight.
Heard v. State, 59 Miss. 545; Perkins v. State, 160 Miss. 720, 135 So. 357; Pope v. State, 158 Miss. 794, 131 So. 264; Whittaker v. State, 169 Miss. 517, 142 So. 474; Keeton v. State, 167 So. 68, 175 Miss. 631; Nichols v. State, 165 Miss. 114, 145 So. 903; Garner v. State, 132 Miss. 815, 96 So. 743; Patterson v. State, 127 Miss. 256, 90 So. 2; Walker v. State, 127 Miss. 246, 89 So. 921.
Although the corpus delicti cannot be proved alone by the defendant's confession, nevertheless his criminal agency may be shown by his confession alone.
Roberts v. State, 121 So. 279; Crabbv. State, 120 So. 569.
Under the cases set out above, the corpus delicti was sufficiently proved to admit the confession and the proof of the corpus delicti, plus the confession, demonstrates the guilt of appellant beyond any sort of doubt, reasonable or otherwise.
This is an appeal from the circuit court of Lee county from a conviction of arson, and a sentence to serve ten years in the state penitentiary imposed upon the appellant.
A confession of the crime was introduced in evidence over the objection of the appellant on the ground that it was obtained under duress. A preliminary inquiry was held by the court as to whether or not the confession had been freely and voluntarily made. The trial court found from the facts that this written confession had been freely and voluntarily given, and there is ample testimony to sustain this finding.
But it was also contended by the appellant that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sauter, 9012
...or admission by accused of the commission of another crime. 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, Sec. 682, page 1088. See also: Gunter v. State, 180 Miss. 769, 178 So. 472; Baygents v. State, 144 Miss. 442, 110 So. 114; Bartz v. State, 229 Wis. 522, 282 N.W. 562. It also applies to statutory rape. See ......
-
Lee v. State
...150 Miss. 159, 116 So. 533; Baygents v. State, 144 Miss. 442, 110 So. 114; English v. State, 206 Miss. 170, 39 So.2d 876; Gunter v. State, 180 Miss. 769, 178 So. 472. There are well defined exceptions to the foregoing rule and they are said to be founded on as much wisdom and justice as the......
-
Skinner v. State
... ... This ... brings us to the matter of a confession which was made freely ... and voluntarily, according to the evidence, but as to which ... objection was made that it contained admissions of separate ... offenses and was therefore inadmissible. Gunter v ... State, 180 Miss. 769, 178 So. 472. In that case, the ... Court said: 'It is the general rule that a confession ... containing admission of guilt of a separate offense, and ... independent of the one inquired into, is not admissible, ... Baygents v. State, 144 Miss. 442, 110 So. 114; ... ...