Reason v. State

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtFLETCHER, J.
Citation48 So. 820,94 Miss. 290
PartiesBRODIE REASON v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Decision Date29 March 1909

48 So. 820

94 Miss. 290

BRODIE REASON
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 29, 1909


October, 1908

FROM the circuit court of Marshall county, HON. WILLIAM A. ROANE, Judge.

Reason, appellant, was indicted, and tried for and convicted of the murder of his father, Henry Reason, sentenced to the penitentiary for life, and appealed to the supreme court.

The state failed to prove by any eyewitness that appellant committed the homicide; appellant himself denying that he was guilty of the crime. The conviction rested, aside from the confession hereinafter mentioned, on the testimony of his younger fourteen years old brother, Frank Reason, to the effect that appellant had made threats against his father shortly before the killing, and shortly after the fatal shot ran from the house in which the killing occurred. This witness had, however, twice previously testified altogether differently, affirming that appellant was not guilty. The state also introduced testimony of an alleged confession by appellant to the sheriff and his deputies, which appellant contended was extorted by threats.

Reversed and remanded.

D. M. Featherston, for appellant.

Appellant testified, without contradiction, that his original confession of guilt was extorted from him by threats to the effect that if he did not admit his guilt he would be hanged as soon as he reached Holly Springs. While this original confession was not admitted in evidence, the court below erroneously permitted the state over appellant's objection to show that it was reiterated when the prisoner reached Holly Springs. This was error. Whitley v. State, 78 Miss. 255, 28 So. 852.

A confession of guilt to be admissable in evidence must be free and voluntary, not extorted by fear or induced by threats or personal violence or hope held out by promise of reward. Peter v. State, 4 Smed. & M. 31; Van Buren v. State, 24 Miss. 512; Simon v. State, 37 Miss 288; Whitley v. State, 78 Miss. 255, 28 So. 852; Smith v. State, 72 Miss. 420, 18 So. 422; Ammon v. State, 80 Miss. 592, 32 So. 9; Mackmaster v. State, 82 Miss. 459, 34 So. 156; Banks v. State, 47 So. 437.

George Butler, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.

It is true that there is some testimony that the confession was extorted by threats. But the extorted confession was not offered in evidence. The confession proved on the trial was subsequently made in the jail at Holly Springs. Accordingly, the cases cited by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Pullen v. State, 32065
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 11 Mayo 1936
    ...v. State, 78 Miss. 255; Ammons v. State, 80 Miss. 592; Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44, 3 So. 188, 7 Am. State Rep. 634; Reason v. State, 94 Miss. 290, 48 So. 820. The burden was upon the state to prove by positive evidence that the homicide was committed by the defendant and that he committed ......
  • Keeton v. State, 31931
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 6 Abril 1936
    ...143 Miss. 757, 109 So. 697; Whitley v. State, 78 Miss. 255, 28 So. 852, 53 L. R. A. 402; Durham v. State, 47 So. 545; Reason v. State, 94 Miss. 290, 48 So. 820; Fisher v. State, [175 Miss. 635] 145 Miss. 116, 110 So, 361; Fletcher v. State, 159 Miss. 41, 131 So. 251. Our second objection to......
  • Weatherford v. State, 30156
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 24 Octubre 1932
    ...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; Mackmaster v. State, 82 Miss. 459, 34 So. 156. [164 Miss. 890] When a confession of a defendant is offered in evidence the court sh......
  • Williams v. State, 22434
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 10 Julio 1922
    ...threats, or violence. (Jones v. State, 58 Miss. 349; Whitley v. State, 78 Miss. 255; McMasters v. State, 82 Miss. 459; Reason v. State, 94 Miss. 290; Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 196.) All the alleged evidence in this case was obtained upon the premises of appellant by officers who were not ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Pullen v. State, 32065
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 11 Mayo 1936
    ...v. State, 78 Miss. 255; Ammons v. State, 80 Miss. 592; Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44, 3 So. 188, 7 Am. State Rep. 634; Reason v. State, 94 Miss. 290, 48 So. 820. The burden was upon the state to prove by positive evidence that the homicide was committed by the defendant and that he committed ......
  • Keeton v. State, 31931
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 6 Abril 1936
    ...143 Miss. 757, 109 So. 697; Whitley v. State, 78 Miss. 255, 28 So. 852, 53 L. R. A. 402; Durham v. State, 47 So. 545; Reason v. State, 94 Miss. 290, 48 So. 820; Fisher v. State, [175 Miss. 635] 145 Miss. 116, 110 So, 361; Fletcher v. State, 159 Miss. 41, 131 So. 251. Our second objection to......
  • Weatherford v. State, 30156
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 24 Octubre 1932
    ...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; Mackmaster v. State, 82 Miss. 459, 34 So. 156. [164 Miss. 890] When a confession of a defendant is offered in evidence the court sh......
  • Williams v. State, 22434
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 10 Julio 1922
    ...threats, or violence. (Jones v. State, 58 Miss. 349; Whitley v. State, 78 Miss. 255; McMasters v. State, 82 Miss. 459; Reason v. State, 94 Miss. 290; Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 196.) All the alleged evidence in this case was obtained upon the premises of appellant by officers who were not ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT