Jackson v. State
| Decision Date | 28 February 1888 |
| Parties | JACKSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
The indictment in this case charged in a single count that Bob Jackson and Willie Hopkins "did unlawfully and wantonly kill a horse, the property of Jake Cowan." Jackson being on trial alone pleaded not guilty, but was convicted and fined $300. On the trial, as the bill of exceptions states, Jake Cowan testified, as a witness for the state that he had, on several occasions, found "Paris green" in the trough in which he fed his horse, and thinking that some one was attempting to poison his horse placed the trough on a post in the center of the stable that, hearing his dog bark a few nights afterwards, he went out in the yard, and found the defendant holding the dog; "that he caught hold of the defendant, and asked him what he was doing there, and called for help; that the defendant then and there made a confession" to the effect "that he was holding the dog while Willie Hopkins was putting Paris green in the trough to kill the horse;" that he made no promises, offered no reward or inducements, and made no threats whatever to induce the said confession; that his horse was taken sick a few minutes afterwards, and died the next morning, being poisoned with Paris green. Said witness testified also that, on the morning of the defendant's preliminary examination before a justice of the peace, before the trial commenced, the defendant "confessed to him that he held the dog for Willie Hopkins to go into the stable and put Paris green in the trough to poison the horse, and that the said Hopkins had promised to give him $10 for doing so; and the witness said "that no threats were made, no promises, inducements, or rewards offered, but said the confession was voluntary." Here the defendant's counsel stated to the court that they were prepared to prove by witnesses, who had been sworn and put under the rule, that said confession was not voluntary; that the prosecutor promised the defendant, if he would make such confession, that he would give him ten dollars; and that defendant made said confession under the influence of these promises. The court refused to allow the said evidence to be introduced, but stated that it might be introduced hereafter, and that the jury would be allowed to pass on the question whether said confession was voluntary, in view of all the evidence; to which ruling the defendant excepted, and also to the admission of said confession as evidence before the jury. The defendant's witnesses were afterwards introduced, and testified as above stated; and the defendant then moved the court, on all the evidence adduced, to exclude the confessions as evidence, which motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The court instructed the jury "that the testimony of said Jake Cowan made out a prima facie case that said confession was voluntary, and he had therefore allowed it to go before the jury; but had also allowed the testimony of the defendant's witnesses to go before them, and instructed them to carefully consider the evidence on both sides, to decide whether said confession was voluntary, and, if in their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. State
...should receive and hear any testimony offered by the accused tending to show that the confession was not made voluntarily. Jackson v. State, 83 Ala. 76, 3 So. 847; White v. State, 260 Ala. 328, 70 So.2d 624, and the accused should be given the opportunity to present such testimony on voir d......
-
Dannelly v. State
...v. State, 218 Ala. 40, 117 So. 457; Cook v. State, 16 Ala.App. 390, 78 So. 306; Pope v. State, 183 Ala. 61, 63 So. 71; Jackson v. State, 83 Ala. 76, 3 So. 847. 'If such countervailing evidence is not offered until after the preliminary question of the admissibility of the confession is pass......
-
Lokos v. State
...v. State, 218 Ala. 40, 117 So. 457; Cook v. State, 16 Ala.App. 390, 78 So. 306; Pope v. State, 183 Ala. 61, 63 So. 71; Jackson v. State, 83 Ala. 76, 3 So. 847. If such countervailing evidence is not offered until after the preliminary question of the admissibility of the confession is passe......
-
Heard v. State
...witnesses and to present testimony out of the presence of the jury. White v. State, 260 Ala. 328, 70 So.2d 624 (1954); Jackson v. State, 83 Ala. 76, 3 So. 847 (1888); Taylor v. State, 42 Ala.App. 634, 174 So.2d 795 (1965) (trial court's ruling during voir dire hearing held in jury's absence......