State v. Auguste
| Decision Date | 02 May 1898 |
| Docket Number | 12,773 |
| Citation | 50 La.Ann. 488,23 So. 612 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA v. PLACIDE AUGUSTE ET ALS |
Argued April 23, 1898.
APPEAL from the Eleventh Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Landry. Dupre, J.
M. J Cunningham, Attorney General, and R. Lee Garland, District Attorney (P. A. Simmons, Jr., of Counsel), for Plaintiff Appellee.
John N Ogden, for Adam Melancon, Defendant, Appellant.
An information was filed charging Placide Auguste, B. Sylvestre and Adam Melancon with burglary and larceny.
When the case was called for trial Melancon alone was put upon trial.
Why the other two were not then tried does not appear.
A verdict of guilty having been returned, from a judgment thereon sentencing the accused to five years in the penitentiary, this appeal is taken.
He complains of error to his prejudice in the ruling of the trial judge permitting what the prosecution claimed to be a voluntary confession, to go to the jury.
Evidence of the confession being tendered by the State, in order to lay the basis therefor testimony as to its voluntary character was first offered, and to the end of bringing the matter properly before this tribunal this testimony was reduced to writing, and is annexed to the bill of exceptions.
The three parties hereinbefore mentioned were all arrested at or about the same time. Andrus, a deputy sheriff, effected the arrest of Melancon, manacled him with handcuffs and brought him to the jail, where he was placed in confinement. The other two accused parties were also confined in this jail.
A few days following the incarceration, Deputy Andrus, in company with Deputies Doucet and Millspaugh and the sheriff himself, repaired to the jail and entering the jail office sent for the prisoners. They were brought in and Andrus, acting as spokesman, says he told them he wanted them to tell him the truth in regard to the robbing of Mr. Hebert's store, how they had robbed it, when they had robbed it, how often they had robbed it, and what they had taken from the store. "It was then," he continues, "that he (meaning the accused, Melancon) told me how he, Placide and Buddy, got into the store." He affirms that he did not offer the accused any inducement, or immunity from punishment; that he did not frighten or intimidate him, nor was he frightened or intimidated; and that the confession was voluntary. On cross-examination he admits the accused had not sent for him at the time of the alleged confession, but that he had sent for the accused, and that the accused did not volunteer of himself to make a statement before he was sent for.
It also appears from his evidence, on the cross-examination, that a scaffold or gallows, on which a murderer had recently been executed, had been left standing in the jail yard, and that the prisoners could see it in passing to and from the jail. Asked if he advised them to make a statement, he answered: "No; I told him to tell the truth," and asserts he did not say to him it would be better for him to make a statement.
Deputy Millspaugh was called as a witness, and, the testimony of Andrus being read to him, he declared he corroborated the same.
The accused, placed on the stand at this juncture, denied he had made any confession to Andrus; testified the latter had endeavored to force him to confess; that he had told him he would be sorry if he did not, etc. He states further that the way Andrus had spoken to him frightened him.
The trial judge ruled the confession had been freely and voluntarily made, and admitted the evidence offered of the same.
In determining the question presented it will not be necessary to give effect to the testimony of the accused.
Considering only the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it is clear that the statement of the accused, offered as a self-incriminating confession, was one made under circumstances amounting to a demand -- the antipode of a free and voluntary confession.
Here was a prisoner in custody and under the authority of the sheriff and his deputies.
He had been arrested by one of the deputies, handcuffed and brought to prison. He is sent for by this deputy a few days later, taken under the shadow of the standing gallows, to a room in the jail, and there confronted by this deputy, in the presence of the sheriff and two other deputies (one of them presumably the jailer) and told he must tell the truth in regard to the robbery.
It was an inquisitorial proceeding in which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mortimore v. State
... ... 183; Meinaka v ... State, 55 Ala. 47; Grant v. State, 55 Ala. 201; ... Maull v. State, 95 Ala. 1, 11 So. 218; State v ... Trusty, 1 Penn. 319, 40 A. 766; Green v. State, ... 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. 851; State v. Jones, 47 La. Ann ... 1, 524, 18 So. 515; State v. Auguste, 50 La. Ann ... 488, 23 So. 612; People v. Howes, 81 Mich. 396, 45 ... N.W. 961; Jones v. State, 58 Miss. 349; State v ... Guy, 69 Mo. 430; State v. York, 37 N.H. 175; ... People v. Mackinder, 61. N. Y. St. 523, 29 N.Y.S ... 842; State v. Carson, 36 S.C. 524, 15 S.E. 588; ... ...
-
Warren v. State
... ... that it was voluntary before it can be received, if objection ... Coffee ... v. State, 25 Fla. 501, 6 So. 493; Clayton v. State, ... [174 Miss. 66] 31 Tex. Crim. Rep. 489, 21 S.W. 255; Hite ... v. Com., 96 Va. 489, 31 S.E. 895; State v ... Auguste, 50 La. Ann. 488, 23 So. 612; Amos v ... State, 183 Ala. 1, 3 So. 749; Harvey v. State, ... 20 So. 837; McMasters v. State, 82 Miss. 459; ... Peter v. State, 4 S. & M. 31; Van Buren v ... State, 24 Miss. 516; Simon v. State, 37 Miss ... 288; Williams v. State, 72 Miss. 117, 16. So. 296; ... ...
-
State v. Henry
... ... Auguste et al., 50 La.Ann. 488, 23 So. 612, ... 613, it was held: ... [196 ... La. 242] * * * With regard to the question of proof to show ... that a confession was or was not voluntary, the rule is not ... that in order to render a statement admissible, the proof ... must be adequate to ... ...
- Jackison v. State