Nichols v. State
| Citation | 145 So. 903,165 Miss. 114 |
| Decision Date | 13 February 1933 |
| Docket Number | 30192 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Parties | NICHOLS v. STATE |
Suggestion Of Error Overruled, March 13, 1933.
APPEAL from circuit court of Alcorn county, HON. THOS. H. JOHNSTON Judge.
G. C Nichols was convicted of theft, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
C. L. Sumners, of Corinth, and J. S. Finch, of Booneville, for appellant.
A confession of a crime is inadmissible in evidence if not freely and voluntarily made.
A very satisfactory definition of the term "voluntary confession" is that it is confession made of the free will and accord of the defendant, without fear or any threat of harm, or without promise or inducement by hope of reward.
1 R. C. L., page 552, sec. 100.
The confession to be admissible, must be without hope of reward, it must be made without fear or threat and the burden of proof is on the state to show that it is voluntary.
Whip v. State, 109 So. 697, 143 Miss. 757, 764; Clash v. State, 112 So. 370, 146 Miss. 811; Johnson v. State, 65 So. 218, 107 Miss. 196; Simon v. State, 37 Miss. 288; Fisher v. State, 110 So. 361, 145 Miss. 115; Baird v. State, 215 Ala. 27, 109 So. 161.
The court determines the competency of a confession but the jury passes upon the weight and credibility of the witness and the defense has a right to cross-examine the witness in regard to a confession.
Brown v. State, 142 Miss. 335, 107 So. 373; Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 207; Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44, 3 So. 188, 7 Am. St. Rep. 634; Williams v. State, 72 Miss. 117, 16 So. 296; Simmons v. State, 61 Miss. 243.
After a confession has been admitted by the court, either party has a right to produce before the jury the same evidence which was submitted to the court when it was called upon to decide the question of competency, and all other facts and circumstances relevant to the confession, or affecting its weight or credit as evidence.
The corpus delicti cannot be proved by confession.
Murray v. State, 61 So. 315, 104 Miss. 296; Rayborn v. State, 76 So. 639, 115 Miss. 730.
The corpus delicti must be proven by evidence aliunde defendant's confession.
Sykes v. State, 128 So. 753, 157 Miss. 600; Owen v. State, 132 So. 753, 159 Miss. 588.
A verdict of the jury contrary to the law and evidence should be reversed.
Jobe v. State, 104 Miss. 860, 61 So. 826; Lamb v. State, 79 So. 849, 118 Miss. 693.
Herbert Nunnery, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
All authorities cited by appellant are good law, but not applicable to the case at bar. It was never shown that appellant was offered any reward or threatened with any violence to induce him to make this confession, but, to the contrary, it was freely and voluntarily made.
Thomas v. State, 124 So. 766; Carothers v. State, 121 Miss. 762, 83 So. 809; Cawthorn v. State, 83 So. 809, 121 Miss. 762.
Appellant was given every opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on the confession made. He was given ample opportunity to bring out all material facts relating to the said confession, made in the presence of these witnesses.
I submit, that the facts in the case at bar cannot be controlled by the cases hereinabove cited by appellant. The appellant had ample opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, the court having passed on the weight and credibility of the testimony and it appeared that the confession was not made under any circumstances rendering it incompetent.
The corpus delicti was sufficiently proved.
Brown v. State, 37 So. 497, 85 Miss. 27; Stubbs v. State, 114 So. 827, 148 Miss. 764.
We admit that without the confession, the state would have had no case, however, connecting the confession along with the testimony of Ammons and the other two witnesses for the state, it is, in our opinion, very clear that the corpus delicti was amply proven.
The appellant, G. C. Nichols, some time prior to his conviction, was employed by M. F. Ammons, who was in the furniture business in Corinth, Mississippi, and, while so employed, Ammons missed money from his safe, and took the precaution to make notes of the money therein at various times, and the amount missing when the safe was again opened by him.
On July 2, 1931, Ammons missed fifty dollars from the safe. The appellant had been in the store and had opportunity to get money from the safe. Suspecting Nichols, Ammons had dis charged him, but, as Nichols knew the addresses and places of residence of a number of customers owing the firm, when collections were to be made, he re-employed Nichols to work in that regard, but continued to keep check upon the money placed in the safe, and to find some missing.
On or about November 19, 1931, Ammons procured the chief of police to watch, from a point of observation where he could not be seen, while the appellant was in the store, and while Ammons had gone to dinner, and the bookkeeper was absent, and the chief of police testified that Nichols went to the safe, opened it, and took some money therefrom; that he (the chief of police) then went into the store, arrested Nichols, accused him of stealing, took him upstairs, and telephoned Ammons to come. At first, the appellant denied taking the money, but, on being told that he had been watched by the chief of police, he admitted taking it. When Ammons told him of the losses at various times, among others, the one showing fifty dollars on July 2, 1931, Nichols admitted getting the fifty dollars, in the presence of the chief of police and Ammons, and some other items, but denied certain items.
Nichols was indicted for the theft of fifty dollars on July 2, 1931, and was tried for that.
In addition to what has been stated, it was shown by two other witnesses that on the second day of July, 1931, the appellant was seen talking to two strange men, at least two men the employees in the store did not know, in front of the store. These men came into the store and professed a desire to look at some furniture, each wanting a separate kind. The bookkeeper and another employee went upstairs with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keeton v. State
...party may be found by the jury, on proof much slighter than that ordinarily essential." This rule has been followed a in Nichols v. State, 165 Miss. 114, 145 So. 903; Walker v. State, 127 Miss. 246, 89 So. Patterson v. State, 127 Miss. 256, 90 So. 2; Garner v. State, 132 Miss. 815, 96 So. 7......
-
Jackson v. State
...and proof coupled with a confession may be considered as establishing the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt. Nichols v. State, 165 Miss. 114, 145 So. 903; Hayes (Hays) v. State, 214 Miss. 83, 58 So.2d 61. Where there has been a confession by the accused, any corroborative evidence wi......
-
Gunter v. State
...158 Miss. 794, 131 So. 264; Whittaker v. State, 169 Miss. 517, 142 So. 474; Keeton v. State, 167 So. 68, 175 Miss. 631; Nichols v. State, 165 Miss. 114, 145 So. 903; Garner v. State, 132 Miss. 815, 96 So. Patterson v. State, 127 Miss. 256, 90 So. 2; Walker v. State, 127 Miss. 246, 89 So. 92......
-
Brooks v. State
......We recognize the rule. laid down in the cases of Stringfellow v. State, 26. Miss. 157; Jenkins v. State, 41 Miss. 582; Pope. v. State, 158 Miss. 794, 131 So. 264; Owen v. State, 159 Miss. 588, 132 So. 753; Morton v. State, 136 Miss. 284, 101 So. 379; Nichols v. State, 165 Miss. 114, 145 So. 903; Perkins v. State, 160 Miss. 720, 135 So. 357; Whittaker v. State, 169 Miss. 517, 142 So. 474; Heard v. State, 59 Miss. 545, that before a confession can be. admitted in evidence against the person accused of the crime. the corpus delicti must first be ......