Oliphant v. State

• Decision Date: 13 November 1935
• Docket Number: 25034.
• Citation: 182 S.E. 523,52 Ga.App. 105
• Parties: OLIPHANT et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

182 S.E. 523

52 Ga.App. 105

OLIPHANT et al. v. STATE.

No. 25034.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

November 13, 1935

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Proof of incriminatory "admissions" will not authorize charge on ""confessions," unless admissions are broad enough to comprehend every element essential to make out case against accused.

A "confession" is a voluntary admission of guilt; an "admission," as applied to criminal cases, is the avowal of a fact or of circumstances from which guilt may be inferred, but only tending to prove the offense charged, and not amounting to a confession of guilt.

Charging law of confessions on proof of accused's statements that they desired to settle case and were willing to pay prosecutors for stolen property to stop prosecution held reversible error, not cured by charge that it was for jury to determine whether confession had been made since statements were merely incriminatory "admissions."

Error from Superior Court, Whitfield County; C. C. Pittman, Judge.

Brit Oliphant and others were convicted of simple larceny, and they bring error.

Reversed.

p>Page D. W. Mitchell, of Dalton, for plaintiffs in error.

John C Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Dalton, for the State.

Syllabus OPINION.

BROYLES Chief Judge.

1. Proof of incriminatory admissions will not authorize a charge on the subject of confessions. Unless the admissions are broad enough to comprehend every essential element necessary to make out the case against the defendant, they cannot be held to be admissions of his guilt. "'There is a very wide distinction between admitting the main fact, and admitting some minor or subordinate fact or series of facts which could be true, whether the main fact existed or not.' A confession is a voluntary admission of guilt. An admission, as applied to criminal cases, is the avowal of a fact or of circumstances from which guilt may be inferred, but only tending to prove the offense charged, and not amounting to a confession of guilt." Riley v. State, 1 Ga.App. 651 (3), 57 S.E. 1031; Benford v. State, 38 Ga.App. 740 (1), 145 S.E. 474, and citations; Richardson v. State, 47 Ga.App. 138, 169 S.E. 770.

2. In the instant case, the admissions of the defendants were not broad enough to amount to admissions of their guilt of the offense charged (simple larceny), but were merely statements that they desired to settle the case and were willing to pay the prosecutors for...