Hauk v. The State

• Decision Date: 11 June 1897
• Docket Number: 18,054
• Citation: Hauk v. The State, 148 Ind. 238, 47 N.E. 465 (Ind. 1897)
• Parties: Hauk v. The State
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

47 N.E. 465

148 Ind. 238

Hauk v. The State

No. 18,054

Supreme Court of Indiana

June 11, 1897

Original Opinion of February 16, 1897, Reported at: 148 Ind 238.

OPINION

Per curiam.

Counsel for appellant, in their brief, on petition for a rehearing, again earnestly insist: 1st.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. 2d.That the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the confession of appellant. 3d.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...