Smith v. State

• Decision Date: 04 March 1905
• Parties: SMITH v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 1123

85 S.W. 1123

SMITH v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 4, 1905.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Phillips County; Hance M. Hutton, Judge.

Robert Smith was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.

W. G. Dinning, for appellant. Robert L. Rogers, Atty. Gen., for the State.

McCULLOUGH, J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of burglary, the only proof connecting him with the commission of the offense being his own confession, and it is argued in his behalf that the confession was extorted from him by threats and physical violence. He was arrested by a police officer in the city of Helena, where the offense is alleged to have been committed, and confined in the city prison for one day, and then taken to the county jail. He testified that the police officer who arrested him whipped him severely, and extorted a confession from him. This is not denied, and must therefore be taken as true. The prosecution did not, however, introduce testimony to establish the alleged confession made to the police officer, but proved a confession made to the sheriff and jailer the following day, while confined in the county jail. The sheriff testified that appellant sent for him, and confessed having committed the crime; that the confession was free and voluntary, and that no promises or threats were made to appellant to induce him to confess; and that no violence was offered or inflicted. In this he was fully corroborated by the jailer, who also testified to the confession, and all the circumstances under which it was made. The sheriff said: "I told him that I would not promise him anything; that he should not be whipped while in jail, unless for disturbance or disobedience of orders; and he told me the reason he wanted to tell this was because there were three others in all, and he wanted to get them all punished, the same as he." Appellant testified that the confession in jail was extorted from him by the sheriff, jailer, and chief of police, by having him severely whipped, but this is denied by each of those officers; and the trial judge found that this testimony was not true, and admitted the confession in the evidence.

In Corley v. State, 50 Ark. 305, 7 S. W. 255, Chief Justice Cockrill, speaking for the court, said: "Whether or not a confession is voluntary is a mixed question of law and fact, to be determined by the court. It is the duty of the trial judge to decide the facts upon which the admissibility of the evidence depends, and his finding is conclusive on appeal, as it is in other cases where he discharges the function of a jury. Runnels v. State, 28 Ark. 121; 1 Greenleaf, Ev. § 219. The conclusion to be drawn from the facts is a question of law, and is reversible by the appellate court. If the confession is fairly traceable to the prohibited influence, the trial judge should exclude it, and his failure to do so is error for which the judgment may be reversed." The converse of the doctrine thus stated, therefore, is that if the confession is...