Hauk v. State
| Decision Date | 11 June 1897 |
| Citation | 47 N.E. 465,148 Ind. 238 |
| Parties | HAUK v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Counsel for appellant, in their brief, on petition for a rehearing, again earnestly insist: (1) That there was an abuse of discretion upon the part of the lower court in denying appellant's application for a change of venue from the county; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the confession of appellant; (3) that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that, if they believed that the confession was made under the influence of fear, produced by threats, they should reject it, and give it no consideration. It is therefore contended that this court erred in sustaining the rulings of the lower court upon these several questions. We have again given these and the other questions raised in this appeal a careful review and consideration, and can find no reason to disapprove the conclusions reached in the original opinion. It is contended that it was the province of the jury to determine whether the confession of the accused was made under the influence of fear produced by threats, and, if they believed such to be a fact, they must reject it as evidence; or, in other words, we are asked to virtually adjudge that the jury ought to have been permitted to exercise the prerogative of the court, and decide the question of the competency of the confession as evidence. It was held at the original hearing of this appeal that the court having, in the first instance, held that the confession was competent, appellant could not require it to submit the question of its competency to the decision of the jury. The competency of any character of evidence is a question exclusively for the determination of the court. The weight or credibility, however, to which it is entitled, is a matter exclusively for the decision of the jury in accordance with the rules of law relative to that question. The rule affirmed by the authorities cited by the court in the original opinion–and the correct one, we think–is that which requires the court to determine at the trial as a preliminary question whether the confession of the person accused of the crime is incompetent upon the ground that it is the offspring of fear produced by threats. When the court holds the confession admissible as evidence, it must be received by the jury, and it is not within their province to reject it as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crank
...... confession. * * * If this is true, it follows that where the. court is in doubt whether the confession was voluntary or. not, the evidence may be admitted, leaving it to the jury to. determine the weight to which it is entitled under all the. circumstances.". . . And in. Hauk v. State , 148 Ind. 238, 46 N.E. 127,. 47 N.E. 465, 466, the court after a careful consideration of. the question said:. . . "When. the court holds the confession admissible as evidence, it. must be received by the jury, and it is not within their. province to reject it as ......
-
State v. Kerns
...... and fact. We think that it was to be determined by the trial. court as any other matter touching the admissibility of. evidence. Huffman v. State, 130 Ala. 89, 30 So. 394;. People v. Loper, 159 Cal. 6, 112 P. 720, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1193; Hauk v. State, 148 Ind. 238, 46 N.E. 127, 47 N.E. 465; State v. Grover, 96 Me. 363, 52 A. 757, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 128; State v. Holden, 42. Minn. 350, 44 N.W. 123; State v. Staley, 14 Minn. 105, Gil. 75; State v. Berberick, 38 Mont. 423, 100. P. 209, 16 Ann. Cas. 1077 (under statute); ......
-
People v. Preston
... . Page 542 . 176 N.Y.S.2d 542 . 13 Misc.2d 802 . PEOPLE of The State of New York, Plaintiffs, . v. . John PRESTON, Defendant. . Kings County Court. . July 22, 1958. . . Page 545 . [13 Misc.2d 803] ... State v. Grimmell, 116 Iowa 596, 88 N.W. 342; Hauk v. State, 148 Ind. 238, 46 N.E. 127, 47 N.E. 465; but see contra State v. Karcher, 155 Ohio St. 253, 98 N.E.2d 308. The foregoing rule was held ......
-
Kallas v. State, 28469.
......Keith v. State, 1901, 157 Ind. 376, 385, 61 N.E. 716. Nor was the state bound by the appellant's self-serving answers that he stabbed the decedent because he had attempted to rob him. The credibility of his statements was for the determination of the jury. Hauk v. State, 1897, 148 Ind. 238, 46 N.E. 127,47 N.E. 465; Keith v. State, supra; Ewbank's Indiana Criminal Law 2d Ed., 341, 342, § 517. The appellant places great stress on the alleged error of the trial court in refusing to strike out the statement made by the deputy prosecuting ......