Heldt v. State
Decision Date | 24 November 1886 |
Citation | 20 Neb. 492,30 N.W. 626 |
Parties | HELDT v. STATE. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a detective, in the guise of a friend, induced a suspected party to make a confession of a crime, without inducement of any kind, except at his request, he said that he had consulted an attorney for the prisoner, who said “he [the prisoner] had better tell the facts of the case, and that they would be likely to do him as much good as anything he could do; that there was no use of lying about it, and he had better tell the truth:” held, (1) that the alleged confession was admissible in evidence; (2) that the credibility of a witness who, by deceit, misrepresentation, and other disreputable means, has obtained an alleged confession from a prisoner, is for a jury, who should be specially instructed on that point.1
An instruction that “persons sometimes say that they are morally certain of the existence of a fact or facts, but have not the evidence to prove it; this is the condition of mind one is in when convinced beyond a reasonable doubt,”––is erroneous.2
Where the defendant in a criminal case has pleaded not guilty, the jury, in order to convict him of the offense charged, must find from the evidence that he is guilty; and the court has no authority to say to them that certain “allegations are uncontradicted, and therefore may be by the jury considered as proved.” The credibility of the witnesses must be submitted to the jury.
Instructions must be excepted to, in order to obtain a review of them in the supreme court.
If a person accused of crime testifies in his own behalf, he is to be treated as any other witness; and, if he fails to deny a material fact which has been testified against him, the district attorney may comment upon such omission in his argument to the jury.3
Error from Colfax county.
Indictment for obstructing a railroad track.
J. W. Brown, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General and Wm. Marshall, for the State.
The plaintiff was indicted by the grand jury of Colfax county for willfully. unlawfully, and feloniously placing railroad ties on the Union Pacific Railway track, to obstruct the same, and was found guilty, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for 10 years. The errors assigned will be noticed in their order.
1. That the court erred in admitting the testimony of one Tuffield as to an alleged confession made by the plaintiff to him. His testimony is as follows:
Exhibit D is as follows:
“OMAHA, November 22, 1884.
Regarding this wrecking affair, would say that I had no intention to hurt either human beings, or to damage any property, but took especial pains to have the train notified in time to prevent all accidents, my object being to get into the good graces of the railroad company, and thereby get a job, which I was in need of, as I could find nothing else to do, and I am willing to swear to the foregoing confession.
FRANK HELDT.”
Written below the confession is the following:
“Received this letter from Frank Heldt, in county jail, November 22, '84, 8 P. M.
J. S. MILLER.”
This letter seems to have been open, but was addressed to “Judge Bennett, Omaha, Neb.”
The rule is well settled that a promise of benefit or favor, or a threat or intimation of disfavor, connected with the subject of the charge, held out by a person having authority in the matter, will be sufficient to exclude a confession made in consequence of such inducement either of hope or fear. Reg. v. Morton, 2 Moody & R. 514; Rex v. Swatkins, 4 Car. & P. 548; Rex v. Mills, 6 Car. & P. 146; Rex v. Shepherd, 7 Car. & P. 579; Rex v. Enoch, 5 Car. & P. 539. But mere advice to tell the truth, where there is neither a threat nor an inducement, is not sufficient to render the confession inadmissible. To be admissible, however, it must appear that the confession was entirely voluntary. The necessity for this rule is very clearly stated in State v. Fields, Peck, 140, that
The plaintiff testified in his own behalf, and his testimony, if true, shows that Tuffield had been in his company at Schuyler for several days, and that they were on very intimate terms, and frequently visited some of the saloons in that place; that the plaintiff regarded him as a friend, and did not suspect that he was a spy upon his actions. A man who will deliberately ingratiate himself into the confidence of another, for the purpose of betraying that confidence,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Storms
...or fraud will not exclude. People v. Barker, 60 Mich. 277 (27 N.W. 539); State v. Staley, 14 Minn. 105 (Gil. 75); Heldt v. State, 20 Neb. 492 (30 N.W. 626). Fear ultimate consequences of the crime will not be sufficient. Allen v. State, 12 Ill.App. 190; People v. Wentz, 37 N.Y. 303. And the......
-
State v. Storms
...deception, or fraud will not exclude. People v. Barker, 60 Mich. 279, 27 N. W. 539;State v. Staley, 14 Minn. 105 (Gil. 75); Heldt v. State, 20 Neb. 492, 30 N. W. 626. Fear of ultimate consequences of the crime will not be sufficient. Allen v. State, 12 Ill. App. 190;People v. Wentz, 37 N. Y......
-
Strong v. State
...of the jury in determining the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses. Walrath v. State, 8 Neb. 80;Heldt v. Same, 20 Neb. 492, 30 N. W. 626;Long v. Same, 23 Neb. 33, 36 N. W. 310;Johnson v. Same, 34 Neb. 257, 51 N. W. 835;Argabright v. Same, 49 Neb. 760, 69 N. W. 102;Bur......
-
Argabright v. State
...the credibility of witnesses, and to determine the weight to be accorded their testimony (Hedman v. Anderson, 6 Neb. 392;Heldt v. State, 20 Neb. 492, 30 N. W. 626;State v. Cushing, 29 Mo. 215;Shellabarger v. Nafus, 15 Kan. 547;State v. Stout, 31 Mo. 406), and extending this doctrine, and ap......