Johnson v. State

• Decision Date: 21 January 1907
• Citation: 89 Miss. 773,42 So. 606
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: SAMUEL JOHNSON v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

42 So. 606

89 Miss. 773

SAMUEL JOHNSON v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 21, 1907

November 1906

FROM the circuit court of Pike county, HON. MOYSE H. WILKINSON Judge.

Johnson the appellant, and three others, were indicted for the murder of Harriet Caston; there was a severance, and appellant was separately tried, convicted of the murder, and sentenced to suffer death, from which conviction and sentence he appealed to the supreme court.

On the trial of the case the state offered proof of alleged confessions made by appellant to certain private citizens one of whom promised at the time to intercede with the judge in an effort to keep appellant from being hanged, and also told appellant that it would be better for him to confess, as it would go lighter with him if he told the truth. To all of which evidence the defendant, now appellant, objected, but the court below overruled the objection and permitted the evidence to be introduced, and defendant duly excepted. The refusal of the charge asked by appellant, quoted in the opinion of the court, was assigned for error in appellant's motion for a new trial, as was the above rulings on the evidence, and both were again assigned for error in the supreme court.

Reversed and remanded.

Clem V. Ratcliff, for appellant.

The appellant is entitled to a reversal because the court admitted evidence over his objection, which was error. The purported confessions should not have been admitted in evidence. The record will clearly disclose the total, flagrant incompetency of the alleged confessions, to which proper and legal objections and exceptions were taken. Williams v. State, 72 Miss. 117 (S.C., 16 So. 296); Ford v. State, 75 Miss. 101 (S.C., 21 So. 524); Draughn v. State, 76 Miss. 574 (S.C., 25 So. 153); Hamilton v. State, 77 Miss. 675; Whitley v. State, 78 Miss. 255; Blalack v. State, 79 Miss. 517 (S.C., 31 So. 105); Ammons v. State, 80 Miss. 592 (S.C., 32 So. 9); Wright v. State, 82 Miss. 421; Macmasters v. State, 82 Miss. 459; Stanley v. State, 82 Miss. 498 (S.C., 34 So. 360).

There was fatal error in refusing the instruction for the defendant.

R. V. Fletcher, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.

The confession shown by the testimony of Thompson and White, private persons, having no power or control over the prisoner, is alleged to be incompetent because the confession was preceded by the statement of Thompson that it would be best for the prisoner to confess, and that such action would make it lighter on him. The distinction between confessions made to private persons and persons in authority is clearly pointed out by Justice GEORGE in Jones v. State, 58 Miss. 349; Dick v. State, 30 Miss. 593; Simon v. State, 36 Miss. 636.

In Wigmore on Evidence, pages 936 and 937, will be found a clear and exhaustive statement of what the author terms the "orthodox modern" rule on the subject of confessions. I do not attempt to quote from this remarkably analytic discussion, nor to make an abstract therefrom, but I submit that both these confessions, when tested by the principles there announced, are competent. Neither Thompson or White were officers, nor in any way connected with the administration of the law. The prisoner was not of tender years, nor is he shown to be weak-minded, or without ordinary intelligence. The inducements held out to him were trivial in comparison with the gravity of the admission made. No sensible person would for a moment imagine that either of these parties had the power to lighten the sentence or interfere with the execution of the law. Testing the confession by all the facts disclosed by the record, can this court say that the inducements offered were such that there was any risk of a false confession? It should be remembered, too, that these confessions made to Thompson and White were identical in substance with other confessions which were not tainted with threats or promises. This is sufficient to show that the confessions were not false statements extorted from the prisoner by threats or promises. I call the attention of the court to the fact that confessions are never excluded on the theory that, while true, they were induced by promises, thereby improperly leading the prisoner to incriminate himself. 1 Wigmore on Evidence, 934 (c).

The sole test is whether they are probably false; if other confessions made "voluntarily" support the confessions made by "inducements" it is a strong argument against reversing the case, since the court knows by evidence of unquestioned competency that a false statement had not been made. The inducements held out in this case were a promise to try to save his neck and a promise of employment (White), and a statement that it would be lighter for him if he told the truth (Thompson). This class of inducements is treated by Wigmore on pages...