Pickens v. State
| Citation | 91 So. 906,129 Miss. 191 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 22113 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Parties | PICKENS v. STATE |
March 1922
CRIMINAL LAW. Admitting confession of another jointly accused, made out of defendant's presence, and after the crime, was error.
In a trial of one for murder, where the defendant and two others are jointly accused of the crime, it was fatal error to allow the state to show the conviction and implicating confession of one of the others and the plea of guilty of the other; the confession being out of the presence of defendant, and after the commission of the crime.
APPEAL from circuit court of Sunflower county, HON. S. F. DAVIS Judge.
Ben Pickens was convicted of murder, and sentenced to death, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Neil & Clark, for appellant.
It is not permissible to introduce in evidence, as against a conspirator, the acts or declarations of conspirators which were done or made after the conspiracy had come to an end, either through accomplishment of its object or by reason of an abandonment. 16 C. J. 656. sec. 1309; Osborne v. State, 99 Miss. 419.
The special assistant to the attorney-general makes the following candid statement, to-wit.
If this admission on the part of the attorney-general is true, and we submit the record shows it to be true, then both a conspiracy and appellant's guilt were established by, as we contend, an extorted confession made after the conspiracy, if any, had come to an end or been accomplished; and without further reference to any other of the many errors, in this cause, we submit that it should be reversed.
H. Cassedy Holden, for appellee.
It is contended by appellant that the court erred in admitting the confession of Gerrard White, the co-conspirator of appellant. It is insisted that this confession was involuntary, but it is submitted that there is no merit in this contention. See testimony of T. D. Robertson and H. Gilbert. The court is also requested to refer to the briefs for the state and the appellant in the case of Gerrard White v. State, in this connection.
But it is also insisted that the confession of White, the co-conspirator, was not admissible and competent evidence against the appellant, because this confession was made after the commission of the crime, are admissible as tending to show why defendant and others had banded together, and the extent of their crime or conspiracy. State v. Donavan, 125 Iowa 239, 101 N.W. 122; Cline v. State (Tex.), 178 S.W. 520.
Facts and circumstances which go to establish a conspiracy are none the less admissible because at the same time they supply evidence tending to prove the guilt of defendant. People v. Stokes (Calif.), 89 P. 997.
In all candor, I feel it my duty to call the court's attention to the following announcement of law which appeals in 16 C. J. at page 659: "Confessions or admissions of one conspirator or co-defendant are not admissible in evidence against another, unless they were made in his presence and assented to by him, or unless he admitted their truth, in which cases they are admissible although made after the termination of the conspiracy, upon the theory that they are in the nature of admissions of defendant:" See also Osborn v. State, 99 Miss. 422; Garrard v. State, 50 Miss. 147; Tate v. State, 95 Miss. 138, 48 So. 13.
The confession of White was proof of a conspiracy itself as well as proof of the guilt of the appellant of the crime of murder. The state had no other means of proving the conspiracy between the three men except by the confession of White. It is true that the wounds upon the body of Mr. Gross indicated that more than one person had participated in the crime, but there was no way to prove who these persons were except by the confessions of White.
The appellant also contends that the court erred in admitting the testimony of the circuit clerk showing that Kenard had plead guilty to the murder and that White had been tried and convicted. It is insisted that this evidence was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Randall v. State, No. 1999-DP-01426-SCT.
...(citing State v. Thornhill, 251 Miss. 718, 171 So.2d 308 (1965); Pieper v. State, 242 Miss. 49, 134 So.2d 157 (1961); Pickens v. State, 129 Miss. 191, 91 So. 906 (1922)). We have held that placing this information before a jury denies a defendant the fundamental right to a fair trial, and r......
-
Irving v. Hargett, WC 79-75-OS-O.
...State v. Thornhill, 251 Miss. 718, 171 So.2d 308, 312 (1965); Pickett v. State, 164 Miss. 142, 144 So. 552 (1932); Pickens v. State, 129 Miss. 191, 91 So. 906 (1922). This ignores the fact, however, that Irving could have been called by the State to testify against Givhan. If his testimony ......
-
Williams v. State
...of an absent, non-testifying co-indictee. State v. Thornhill, 251 Miss. 718, 726-27, 171 So.2d 308, 312 (1965); Pickens v. State, 129 Miss. 191, 195, 91 So. 906 (1922). Our only case approaching today's facts--a testifying co-participant who pleaded guilty--is Buckley v. State, 223 So.2d 52......
-
Sharkey v. State
...524 (Miss. 1969) ; Pieper v. State , 242 Miss. 49, 134 So.2d 157 (1961) ; West v. State , 169 So. 770 (Miss. 1936) ; Pickens v. State , 129 Miss. 191, 91 So. 906 (1922) ; Lynes v. State , 36 Miss. 617 (1859).¶53. In Pickens , three men, including Pickens, were charged with murder. Pickens ,......