Mathews v. Com.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1967 |
| Citation | 153 S.E.2d 238,207 Va. 915 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | James Johnnie MATHEWS v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
Thomas O. Lawson, Fairfax, for appellant.
M. Harris Parker, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.
Before EGGLESTON, C.J., and SPRATLEY, BUCHANAN, SNEAD, I'ANSON, CARRICO and GORDON, JJ.
I'ANSON, Justice.
James J. Mathews was indicted by a grand jury on a charge of robbery by violence to the person and by threat of firearms. He was tried by a jury, found guilty, and punishment was fixed at confinement in the State penitentiary for a period of twenty years. The trial court entered judgment on the jury's verdict and sentenced Mathews accordingly. We granted Mathews a writ of error.
Mathews contends that the trial court erred (1) in employing an incorrect procedure to determine the voluntariness of his written confession; and (2) in admitting the confession in evidence, because (a) he was not advised of his rights to remain silent and to have the assistance of counsel; (b) it was induced by promises of leniency, and (c) under the facts and circumstances of this case the confession was involuntary.
The evidence shows that around 5:15 a.m., on April 7, 1965, Mathews and James Williams entered the office of the Travelers' Motel, located in Fairfax county, and inquired of John C. Stutz, who was on duty as night clerk, how to get back on interstate route 95.
Stutz testified that when the men did not seem to understand his directions, he suggested that they go outside so he could show them. When Stutz came from behind his desk, Williams stuck a revolver in his stomach and told him to back up. Williams forced him through a door into the hallway behind the desk by holding the revolver in his back. Stutz said that he glanced over his shoulder several times and saw Mathews pick up a cigar box containing $5.00 in change and go into the cash drawer. Williams kept telling Mathews to hurry and asking him if he had gotten the money.
Before leaving the premises, Williams shoved Stutz down the basement steps. When Stutz returned to the office, he found that $71 in currency had been removed from the cash drawer and the cigar box containing money had been taken. His wallet, containing $75, which he had placed on a shelf behind the desk, had also been taken.
Shortly after midnight on April 8, 1965, Mathews, Williams and two other men were arrested and charged with an armed robbery committed in Nashville, North Carolina. During the course of the investigation of this robbery, Mathews told Sheriff Womble, of Nash county, North Carolina, that he was also involved in the Fairfax county motel robbery. The Fairfax County Police Department was notified, and Detective Baker and Officer King went to Nashville to talk with Mathews, who made a written confession of his participation in the Fairfax robbery.
Evidence on the question of the voluntariness of the written confession and its admissibility at the trial was heard out of the presence of the jury. At the outset of the hearing, the trial judge stated, However he then said, 'I have to be satisfied it is voluntary.'
Baker testified that he first saw Mathews in jail in Nashville, North Carolina, on the night of April 16, 1965, and that Sheriff Womble and Officer King were with him at the time. Baker said Sheriff Womble advised Mathews and the other three men of their constitutional rights and made no promises of leniency. While they were all present Womble stated that in investigating the North Carolina robbery Mathews had admitted his participation in the Fairfax county robbery. Mathews then stated that what the sheriff had said relating to the Fairfax robbery was correct.
The next morning, April 17, Baker talked with the four prisoners separately in the presence of Sheriff Womble and Officer King. Baker said he advised Mathews that he could remain silent; that anything he said could and probably would be used against him in court; and that he was entitled to counsel before making any statement. He also said that neither he, Sheriff Womble, nor King made any promises of leniency to Mathews, and that Mathews freely told of his participation in the Fairfax robbery. Baker reduced to writing the statement made by Mathews, and Mathews signed it after reading it aloud. The confession signed by Mathews also states that he was advised of all of his constitutional rights and that no promises of leniency were made to him.
After Baker's testimony and argument of counsel the trial judge said, 'I am satisfied that the statement was voluntary and it will be admitted in evidence.'
Mathews then testified regarding the voluntariness of his confession. He said that he was arrested a few minutes after midnight on April 8, 1965, very shortly after the Nashville robbery was committed. The following morning he told Sheriff Womble about his participation in the North Carolina and Fairfax county robberies after the sheriff told him that it would go easier for him if he cooperated. Mathews said that when Sheriff Womble, Baker and King saw him in jail on the night of April 16, the sheriff did not tell him his constitutional rights, and that he did not admit participating in the Fairfax robbery. Before giving the oral and written statements to Baker on the morning of April 17, the sheriff again told him it would go easier for him if he cooperated, and because of this inducement he signed the confession. He denied that Baker advised him of his constitutional rights and that he read the statement aloud before signing it.
After hearing Mathews' testimony the trial judge adhered to his former ruling that the statement was voluntary and admissible in evidence, and the jury was recalled. Detective Baker explained to the jury the circumstances under which he had obtained the confession from Mathews, and the statement was introduced in evidence.
Sheriff Womble was not present and thus did not testify at the trial.
Mathews first contends that the trial court did not employ the correct procedure in determining the voluntariness of his confession.
Before 1964, state and federal courts were fairly evenly divided in their choice among three procedures by which the determination of voluntariness of confessions was made in the trial court; namely, the Wigmore rule, the New York rule, and the Massachusetts rule. Developments in the Law--Confessions, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 938, 1058--1060 (1966).
The law in this State relating to the respective roles of the court and jury with regard to confessions has long been settled. Under the Wigmore rule, which is followed in Virginia, the trial judge hears evidence on behalf of the prosecution and the defendant out of the presence of the jury and rules on the voluntariness of a confession for the purpose of determining whether it is admissible. The jury then considers voluntariness only insofar as it affects the weight or credibility of the confession. Reid v. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 464, 467, 144 S.E.2d 310, 312 (1965); McCoy v. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 470, 475--477, 144 S.E.2d 303, 308, 309 (1965); Upshur v. Commonwealth, 170 Va. 649, 655, 197 S.E. 435, 437 (1938); Noe v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 849, 852, 153 S.E.2d 248, 250, this day decided; 7 Mich.Jur., Evidence, § 229, pp. 608, 609.
Under the New York rule the trial judge makes a preliminary determination regarding the voluntariness of a confession offered by the prosecution. If under no circumstances could the confession be deemed voluntary, the trial judge excludes it; however, if the evidence presents a factual conflict as to voluntariness over which reasonable men could differ, the trial judge leaves to the jury, under proper instructions, the ultimate determination of voluntariness. In Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, 1 A.L.R.3d 1205 (1964), the United States Supreme Court held that the New York procedure was constitutionally defective in that it did not insure a reliable determination of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Com.
...the case, making them less reliable. The credibility, weight, and value of confessions are all jury matters. Mathews v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 915, 918-19, 153 S.E.2d 238, 240 (1967); Noe v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 849, 852-53, 153 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1967). We must assume that this jury consider......
-
Watkins v. Com., s. 890094
... ... Therefore, we are not confronted with the situation in which the court, having found a confession voluntary for the purpose of admissibility, must also submit the question of voluntariness to the jury for its determination of weight. Cf. Mathews v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 915, 918-19, 153 S.E.2d 238, 240 ... 4 We made an analogous holding in Dillard v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 820, 821-22, 224 S.E.2d 137, 139 (1976), where we held that a cautionary instruction concerning the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice was inappropriate where ... ...
-
Flournoy v. Peyton
...a jury, the judge performed his required role in Virginia of determining the admissibility of the statements. See Mathews v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 915, 153 S.E.2d 238 (1967), Reid v. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 464, 144 S.E.2d 310 (1965). By his decision, the judge, in effect found that the state......
-
Shumate v. Com.
...and not in answer to interrogation by the trooper. Their admission violated noen of his constitutional rights. See Mathews v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 915, 153 S.E.2d 238. Defendant also contends that the court erred in admitting in evidence the results of the blood tests and in not acquitting......