Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 07 November 1932 |
| Docket Number | Mo. 30283 |
| Citation | 144 So. 233,165 Miss. 462 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | SMITH v. STATE |
1. CRIMINAL LAW.
Competency of confession is primarily for trial judge, whose ruling will be upheld if not overwhelmingly contrary to weight of evidence.
2. CRIMINAL LAW.
Evidence held to show that accused's confession of burglary was free and voluntary and made while in normal mental condition.
3. CRIMINAL LAW.
Where great weight of evidence was that accused charged with burglary was not so intoxicated that he did not know right from wrong, instruction that voluntary intoxication did not excuse crime held not error.
APPEAL from circuit court of Hinds county, HON. W. H. POTTER, Judge.
Albert Smith was convicted of burglary and larceny of merchandise from railroad car, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
Roy Arnold, of Jackson, for appellant.
A confession made under the influence of fear is not a voluntary confession and should not be admitted in evidence. But the fear must have been caused by outside pressure brought to bear on the accused and not by his own imagination.
1 R. C. L. 556-559, 564-565, secs. 105, 110, 112.
Slight expressions, calculated to engender hope of benefit, or fear or injury will vitiate a confession thereby.
Confessions of guilt obtained by force are inadmissible under any circumstances, or for any purpose whatever. Their admission would be a violation of that clause of the Constitution which prohibits the compelling of a party from giving evidence against himself.
Jordan v. State, 32 Miss. 382; McMasters v. State, 82 Miss. 459; Bishop v. State, 96 Miss. 846.
It is the duty of no one to extort confession from prisoner; rather he should be warned that any statement may be used against him.
Confessions are inadmissible when they are secured by "treatment designed to compel confession."
State v. Roberson, 103 So. 283, 157 La. 974; State v. Bernard, 106 So. 656, 160 La. 9.
Confession induced by fear, though not by spoken threats, are not voluntary.
Fisher v. State, 145 Miss. 116; Beaird v. State, 109 So. 77, 20 Ala. 176.
The court is required to consider the condition, situation, and character of defendant and circumstances under which confession was made in determining its character.
Caraway v. State, 101 So. 912, 20 Ala. 362.
W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
The trial court ruled that on the matter of whether or not the defendant was too drunk to know what he was saying, it was a question for the jury to decide, and not the court. This ruling of the trial judge was correct.
The question of the competency of such confession is primarily and exclusively the province of the court, and the holding of the trial court on the admissibility vel non of such confession will not be disturbed on appeal, unless it clearly appears that his action is manifestly wrong.
Tyler v. State, 131 So. 417; Durham v. State, 131. So. 422; Whittaker v. State, 142 So. 474.
Police officers do not have to warn against a confession by accused, and such confession, if otherwise admissible, can be received in evidence.
Thomas v. State, 124 So. 766; Jackson v. State, 140 So. 683.
Argued orally by Roy Arnold, for appellant, and by W. D. Conn, Jr., for appellee.
The appellant was indicted on the charge of burglary and larceny of certain merchandise from an Illinois Central Railroad Company's car in the city of Jackson, Mississippi, and was convicted and sentenced to serve two years in the state penitentiary, from which conviction this appeal is prosecuted.
When the detective who had charge of the matter sought to arrest the appellant he resisted and was shot by the officer; the wound being a flesh wound. He attempted then to escape, was caught, and confessed to the robbery, implicating another. He was carried to the Charity Hospital and his wound was dressed, and while there, in charge of the police...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...787 (1938); Wohner v. State, 175 Miss. 428, 167 So. 622 (1936); Buckler v. State, 171 Miss. 353, 157 So. 353 (1934); Smith v. State, 165 Miss. 462, 144 So. 233 (1932); Whittaker v. State, 169 Miss. 517, 142 So. 474 (1932); Tyler v. State, 159 Miss. 223, 131 So. 417 (1930); Stepney v. City o......
-
Berry v. State, 47597
...that he was unable to form the specific intent to commit the crime charged or unable to distinguish right from wrong. Smith v. State, 165 Miss. 462, 144 So. 233 (1932), Cooper v. State,218 So.2d 874 (Miss. 1969). Mere voluntary intoxication is not ordinarily a defense and is a defense when,......
-
Cooper v. State
...indicate that defendant was so intoxicated or under the influence of marijuana that he did not know right from wrong. Smith v. State, 165 Miss. 462, 144 So. 233 (1932). The trial court granted defendant five instructions on his plea of insanity. They fully set forth his defense. We therefor......