Jackson v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 19 March 1914
• Citation: Jackson v. Commonwealth, 116 Va. 1015, 81 S.E. 192 (1914)
• Parties: JACKSON. v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

(116 Va. 1015)

81 S.E. 192

JACKSON.

v.COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

March 19, 1914.

1. Criminal Law (§ 531*)—Evidence—Confessions—Preliminary Proof.

On a trial for murder, evidence as to an alleged confession by accused held to show that it was induced by the hope, inspired by what the witness told him, that he would thereby escape the extreme penalty of the law.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law. Cent. Dig. §§ 1212-1217; Dee. Dig. § 531.*]

2. Criminal Law (§ 520*)—Evidence—Confessions—Voluntary Character.

Where a confession by a person charged with murder was induced by the hope that he would thereby escape the extreme penalty of the law, inspired by what he was told by a person who, though he held no public office, was active in the prosecution, and promised, if accused would confess, that he would see the judge and secure, or try to secure, some advantage to accused, the confession was not admissible.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1166, 1175-1184; Dec. Dig. § 520.*]

3. Criminal Law (§ 520*)— Evidence—Confession to "Person in Authority."

Within the rule excluding a confession obtained by some inducement in the nature of a threat or promise by a person in authority, or with the apparent sanction of such person, "persons in authority" are those engaged or

concerned in the apprehension, prosecution, or examination of accused.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, gee Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1166, 1175-1184; Dec. Dig. § 520.*]

4. Criminal Law (§ 520*)—Evidence—Confessions—Voluntary Character.

An alleged confession, induced by the hope

of the gain of some advantage or to avoid some

evil in reference to the proceeding against the

declarant, is inadmissible.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal

Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1166, 1175-1184; Dec. Dig.

i 526.*]

Error to Circuit Court, Sussex County.

Emanuel Jackson was convicted of murder, and he brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Armistead & Burt, of Williamsburg, for plaintiff in error.

The Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

CARDWELL, J. The defendant, Emanuel Jackson, plaintiff in error here, was indicted for the offense of murder, and on his trial was found guilty; a motion was made for a new trial, on the grounds therein stated, which was overruled by the court; and the defendant excepted. '

The main ground of error relied on, and which is the controlling question presented, is the ruling of the trial court allowing one W. J. Ellis to testify on behalf of the prosecution to an alleged confession made by the defendant to him, since, without this alleged confession, the evidence certified in the record is plainly insufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury.

It appears from the evidence that the victim of the homicide, Andrew J. Dunn, who was a farmer, left his home on the afternoon of Saturday, October 12, 1912, between the hours of 3 and 4 o'clock, for the purpose of hunting in the "low ground, " which was about two miles from his home, taking with him his gun, and, not having returned at about 7:30 o'clock, search was made for him, resulting in finding him dead in the "low ground"; his death having been caused by a gunshot wound, putting 12 buckshot in his abdomen. Thereafter the defendant, as well as his father, Frank Jackson, Sr., was arrested upon the charge of having committed the murder; but no charge was then or thereafter made that the murder was the result of a conspiracy on the part of the defendant and his father, having for its purpose the murder of Dunn, and there is no Intimation in the record of the existence of such a conspiracy. Frank Jackson, Sr., has since the trial and conviction of the defendant in this case been tried, convicted, and is now serving a sentence of 18 years' imprisonment for this murder.

When the defendant, Emanuel Jackson, was released on bail, the said W. J. Ellis, by whom he had been employed for about 7 years, went on his bail bond for $500. Be-fore that time Ellis, acting under the authority of the attorney for the commonwealth, had secured bloodhounds and attempted to track the guilty party; but those efforts proved of no avail. The evidence, as well as the admissions of the attorney for the commonwealth, show that Ellis had been actively engaged in trying to ferret out who had murdered Dunn, and had been active in trying to apprehend and arrest such person, and to bring about his conviction, the accomplishment of which result would secure the reward of $300 that had been offered, and not withdrawn, "payable to the person or persons bringing about the arrest and conviction of the murderer of Andrew J. Dunn."

After the arrest and commitment of the defendant to jail, as appears from the evidence, including that given by Ellis himself, Ellis was permitted to and often did visit the defendant in the jail, carrying him food, tobacco, etc., and on each of these visits he tried to induce the defendant to make a confession of the murder. The evidence given by Ellis as to the confession alleged to have been made to him by the defendant, as certified in the record, is as follows:

That he (Ellis) was working on this case under the direction and with the approval of the attorney for the commonwealth, but did not hold any public office, and used to go to see the defendant right often, carrying him food and tobacco.

"I talked with him privately most any time. On each of these visits I tried to induce the defendant to make a confession of the murder. I told the defendant that the best thing he could do would be to admit the murder if he did it, to tell the truth, and my motive in telling him this was to induce him to confess. He told me several times there was something he wanted to tell me if I would never tell; but he never told me what it was. While the defendant was in jail he wrote me several letters, which I have here."

That in these letters he names several different people who, he says, did the killing. That the people he named were, at different times before the defendant was put in jail, talked about as the ones who might have committed the murder.

That one of these letters, dated February 20, 1912, was sent to his (Ellis') home by Wm. Hale, the jailer, and in it the defendant asked him to come to the jail to see him (the defendant) that morning. That he was in Richmond that day, and did not get back until late that night, and did not go to the jail until Sunday morning. That he carried the defendant something to eat and some tobacco, and that he found that there had been an attempt to break jail on Thursday night before by some of the prisoners. That he asked the defendant why he tried to break out of jail, and he (defendant) denied that he did try to break out of jail, but that he tried to keep other persons in jail from breaking jail and trying to get out. That he talked to him again about killing decedent, and said to him, "Tell the truth, if you don't live a minute." That on this visit to the jail the following conversation took place between the defendant and himself (Ellis): That he said to him: "What in the name of the Lord did you all want to break out of jail for? Don't you know if you had have gotten me here you you might have brained me, and gotten out for a few days, but would have been soon run down and shot or lynched? It seems to me that you have enough on your hands now, with Andrew Dunn's body on your hands, with 12 buckshot in it, to go before your Maker." He began to cry and said, "Boss, what is the best for me to do?" I said, "Tell the truth, if you don't live a minute." He said, "Boss, I'm guilty, and I want Judge West to know it before court day." That he...