Mathews v. State
| Decision Date | 04 November 1912 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHN MATHEWS v. STATE |
March 1912
APPEAL from the circuit court of Claiborne county, HON.H. C MOUNGER, Judge.
John Mathews was convicted of larceny and appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
R. B Anderson, for appellant.
The alleged confessions to Mr. Magruder which were admitted in evidence were inadmissible on two grounds, to-wit:
First. Because the first confession made to Mrs. Heath, being tainted with the effect of threats, persuasion and violence would be presumed in law to make illegal and impertinent any second confession. This court has repeatedly held to this proposition, and I hesitate to cite authorities to sustain such a well-known principle of the law of evidence. Banks v. State, 47 So. 437; Wigmore on Evidence, 986; State v. Smith, 72 Miss. 420; Harvey v State, 20 So. 837; McMaster v. State, 34 So. 156; Blalock v. State, 79 Miss. 517.
Second. The alleged confessions were inadmissible because they were in no wise free and voluntary.
To say that the town marshal could obtain a free and voluntary confession from a boy of fourteen years, after telling the boy that "it would be better" to tell the truth; and that "all Mrs. Heath wanted was her pin," and the child having been flogged until he cried, taken into an outhouse by two men and there beaten into saying he had taken the pin but had lost it, is to the unbiased mind, an absurdity. The assertion is here ventured that with the "bribery," the "persuasion," the flattery," the "flogging" and the "fear" (all appearing in the record), this court has scarcely met with a case where the rules of evidence were so utterly riddled as in admitting this testimony. Now, furthermore, Mrs. Heath says that she heard Mr. Magruder trying to frighten the little negro, and the defendant, himself, testifies that he was scared by the marshal. On page fourteen of the record, it will be seen that Mrs. Heath said in reply to counsel that Mr. Magruder told him, "You tell me the truth about this and we will not do anything to you," and on page 15 she says that she told him, "I would not do a thing with him."
Claude Clayton, assistant attorney-general, for the state.
Mr. Magruder, the marshal, testified that the young negro was not frightened or crying; that he offered him no inducement, such as immunity from prosecution, etc.
Sarah Moore, the cook for the Heaths, testified that Mr. Richmond and Mr. John Heath whipped the appellant, and that appellant confessed, after being whipped, that he got the pin, and lost it after having stolen it.
John Matthews testified in his own behalf, and the substance of his testimony is as follows:
That he was sweeping the hall; that Mrs. Heath called him from his breakfast and asked him if he knew anything about the stolen pin; that he replied that he did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...... court will notice that at no place did any of the appellants. make any kind of purported confession until after having been. punished. . . Coffee. v. State, 6 So. 493; Frank v. State, 39 Miss. 705;. Peter v. State, 4 S. & M. 31; Simon v. State, 37 Miss. 388; Mathews v. State, 59 So. 842; Banks v. State, 47 So. 437; State v. Smith, 18 So. 482; White v. State, 91 So. 150;. Sweat Box case, 32 So. 9; 28 So. 852; Stubbs v. State, 114 So. 827; Lofton v. State, 116 So. 435; Fisher v. State, 110 So. 361; Johnson v. State, 140 So. 683; Hathorn v. ......
-
Brown v. State
...... court will notice that at no place did any of the appellants. make any kind of purported confession until after having been. punished. . . Coffee. v. State, 6 So. 493; Frank v. State, 39 Miss. 705; Peter v. State, 4 S. & M. 31; Simon v. State, 37 Miss. 388; Mathews v. State, 59 So. 842; Banks v. State, 47 So. 437; State v. Smith, 18 So. 482; White v. State, 91 So. 150-Sweat Box case,. 32 So. 9; 28 So. 852; Stubbs v. State, 114 So. 827; Lofton v. State, 116 So. 435; Fisher v. State, 110 So. 361; Johnson v. State, 140 So. 683; Hathorn v. State, 102 So. ......
- Fisher v. State
-
Warren v. State
...Durham v. State, 47 So. 545; Jones v. State, 133 Miss. 684, 98 So. 150; White v. State, 91 So. 903; Fisher v. State, 110 So. 361; Matthews v. State, 59 So. 842. maintain that it is not simply a question here on review of whether or not the confession was admissible, as much as that enters i......