Mcnish v. State

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: COCKRELL, J.
• Citation: Mcnish v. State, 45 Fla. 83, 34 So. 219 (Fla. 1903)
• Decision Date: 24 March 1903
• Parties: McNISH et al. v. STATE.

34 So. 219

45 Fla. 83

McNISH et al. v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

March 24, 1903

Error to Circuit Court, Columbia County; Bascom H. Palmer, Judge.

Ben McNish and others were convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling house, and bring error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. Pleas of guilty before a committing magistrate are not admissible as voluntary confessions, where the defendants had not been warned that such pleas might be used against them especially when the investigation was held amidst considerable excitment, and under threats against their lives.

2. When a confession has been obtained through illegal influence, a subsequent similar confession cannot be shown, unless it clearly appear that such influence had been removed at the time such subsequent confession was made.

3. A charge that, if the jury believe the defendants did not commit the crime, they should acquit, should not be given as an isolated proposition. It may lead the jury to believe the defendant must prove his innocence.

COUNSEL A. J. Henry, for plaintiffs in error.

William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

COCKRELL J.

The plaintiffs in error were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony.

The state was permitted, over the objections of the plaintiffs in error, hereafter called the 'defendants,' to introduce in evidence the proceedings on the defendants' preliminary examination before a justice of the peace, acting as committing magistrate, wherein they had pleaded guilty one for burglary, and two as accessories thereto. It had been shown that the constable who was still in charge of these defendants had recently before promised one of them that it would be easier for him if he confessed, and an alleged confession so induced had been ruled out by the court. It had further been shown that the justice had called upon them to say whether they were guilty or not guilty, and they were not cautioned or informed that the matter of the plea might be used against them in another trial. Under the circumstances above recited the admission of these pleas was prejudicial error. The justice had no jurisdiction to try the offense charged, but merely 'to ascertain whether there is good ground to hold the accused to bail.' Rev. St. 1892, § 2874.

This court has held strictly to the rule that confessions of the accused should be acted upon with great caution, and it must be clearly shown that, when a confession has once been obtained through illegal influence, such influence has been removed before a subsequent confession may be received. We have also emphasized the duty of a committing magistrate to caution the accused that any statement he may make may be used...