Randolph v. State

• Citation: 118 So. 354,152 Miss. 48
• Decision Date: 08 October 1928
• Docket Number: 27386
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: RANDOLPH et al. v. STATE. [*]

118 So. 354

152 Miss. 48

RANDOLPH et al. v. STATE. ^[*]

No. 27386

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 8, 1928

Division B

1. CRIMINAL LAW. Action of court in excluding, of its own motion, testimony as to confession of witness after marshal had slapped defendant, afforded sufficient relief.

Where no objection was made to testimony relative to confession made to witness after city marshal had slapped defendant action of court in excluding such testimony during further progress of the trial, of its own motion, was sufficient to afford relief from any harm growing out of original admission thereof, since, after testimony was excluded and jury instructed not to consider it, there was nothing else the court could do.

2. CRIMINAL LAW. Court, on proposal to introduce confession must, if requested, conduct preliminary investigation, to determine competency.

When state proposes to introduce in evidence a confession of defendant, the court must, on a preliminary investigation conducted out of the presence and hearing of jury, if requested by defendant, determine whether it is competent or not.

3. WITNESSES. That state witness had been convicted of felony and whipped by some officer does not render testimony incompetent, but only affects credibility.

The fact that a state witness had formerly been convicted of a felony, and served a sentence in the penitentiary, and had been whipped by some officer about another matter, does not render testimony incompetent, but only affects its credibility before the jury, who are sole and only judges of the weight of the evidence.

HON. C P. LONG, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Lee county, HON. C. P. LONG, Judge.

Gayle Randolph and others were convicted of burglary and larceny, and they appeal. Affirmed.

Cause affirmed.

Boggan & Leake, for appellants.

In Whip v. State, 109 So. 697, Judge ANDERSON said: "In order to make competent a confession of guilt by a defendant charged with crime, the evidence of such confession must be so strong as to exclude every reasonable doubt that it was procured from the defendant under a threat of punishment, or a promise of reward. It must exclude every reasonable doubt that the confession was freely and voluntarily made." See Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44, 3 So. 188; 7 Am. St. Rep. 634; Williams v. State, 72 Miss. 117, 16 So. 296; State v. Smith, 72 Miss. 720, 18, So. 482; Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 192, 65 So. 218, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1183.

Where a confession is made under the influence of threats or the hope of reward, a subsequent confession will not be admissible in evidence until such influence is shown to have been removed. Whitley v. State, 78 Miss. 255, 28 So. 852, 53 L. R. A. 402, Note; Reason v. State, 94 Miss. 290, 48 So. 820; Mackmasters v. State, 82 Miss. 459, 34 So. 156; Fisher v. State, 110 So. 361.

Rufus Creekmore, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

If the witness was competent, his credibility was for the determination of the jury, "the sole and exclusive judges of the weight of the evidence," Miller v. State, 35 So. 690, and whose province it is "to determine the result of conflicting testimony." Alexander v. State, 21 So. 923; Osborn v. State, 99 Miss. 410.

The procedure approved by the court in the case of Lamar v. State, 63 Miss. 265, and uniformly followed since that time relative to the introduction of confessions was not followed in this case. Lee v. State, 137 Miss. 329, 102 So. 296; Simmons v. State, 61 Miss. 243. See Alexander v. State, 145 Miss. 675, 110 So. 367; Stalling v. State, 107 So. 690.

Argued orally by J. W. P. Boggan, for appellants, and Rufus Creekmore, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

OPINION

PACK, J.

The three appellants, Gayle Randolph, Buster Brown, and Duck Peters, were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted of the crimes of burglary and larceny. They were sentenced to a term of five years in the penitentiary. The grocery store of Baker, Coleman & Co., in Tupelo, was burglarized on Saturday night, after the closing hour, during the month of March, 1927, and about two hundred dollars in money, bonds, and other securities were stolen from the store.

The principal testimony for the state was that of Roy Johnson, and a confession of Duck Peters, one of the appellants. Roy Johnson testified that on the morning following the burglary the three defendants came to his house; that Gayle Randolph had concealed under his jumper a small box, containing the bonds and other securities; that the defendants told him they had broken open the store in question, and gotten the valuables therefrom; that Randolph hid the box in a closet on the premises; that on the next night Duck Peters told him (Johnson) that they had also gotten some money from the store, but that the same had been lost in gambling. Randolph went with the officers to where the box was concealed, and recovered it for them, the contents of which were identified as the property in question.

All three of the defendants were arrested and placed in jail. Duck Peters was first placed in the cell with the other appellants, and then in a cell with Roy Johnson. J. E. Carr, the city marshal, went to the jail, took Peters out of the cell and into a private place, where the marshal testifies that Peters made a confession, admitting his own guilt, and implicating the other defendants. At first it appeared that this confession was made in the presence of the other defendants, but later in the trial it developed that it was without their hearing. Whereupon the court excluded the confession as to all defendants, except Peters himself.

Carr, the marshal, admitted slapping Peters, but said it was after the confession was made, and that it was provoked by a saucy answer to one of the official's questions. Shortly after Peters made the confession to Carr, Mr. Coleman visited the jail, and, as a witness for the state, testified that Peters made the same confession to him.

There was no preliminary inquiry had before the court, in the absence of the jury, to ascertain the competency of this confession, and none asked for by appellants. Peters testified that the confession was made after threats of the marshal, and after the marshal had slapped him. The appellants deny that they had anything to do with the crime, deny going to Johnson's home, and offer several witnesses in support of an alibi.

Appellants complain that the court erred in permitting Coleman to testify regarding the confession made by Peters. This contention is based upon the after-developed fact in the trial that the confession made to Coleman was after the city marshal had slapped Peters. Counsel invoke the rule that, where a confession is made under influences condemned by the law, a subsequent confession will not be admissible until there has been a removal of such influences. In support of this rule appellants cite Whitley v. State, 78 Miss. 255, 28 So. 852, 53 L. R. A. 402; Reason v. State, 94 Miss. 290, 48 So. 820; Mackmasters v. State, 82 Miss. 459, 34 So. 156; Fisher v. State, 145 Miss. 116, 110 So. 361.

As stated, no objection was made to this testimony when offered,...