State v. Barker
Decision Date | 08 January 1910 |
Citation | 106 P. 133,56 Wash. 510 |
Parties | STATE v. BARKER. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; J. D. Hinkle Judge.
Frank Barker was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
A. H Gregg and P. R. Heily, for appellant.
Fred C Pugh, Donald F. Kizer, and A. J. Laughon, for the State.
Appellant was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree. He appeals from the judgment pronounced thereon.
It appears that after the appellant was arrested he was taken to the city jail in Spokane, and while there was taken into the presence of the prosecuting attorney, a deputy sheriff, and two or three police officers, and questioned first in regard to his presence on the day of the murder. The appellant at first denied that he was at Medical Lake, where the murder was committed, on that day, but, when told by the prosecuting attorney that he had proof of the fact that the accused was at Medical Lake on that day, he then admitted that he was there, and that he killed the deceased by striking him on the head with a piece of gas pipe; that he did it because the deceased was following him and had addressed him with vile language. At the trial, when the prosecution called a witness to prove these admissions, an objection was made upon the ground that the admissions were obtained from the defendant by duress, and were made under the influence of fear produced by threats. The appellant by his counsel requested the court to exclude the jury, and to determine this question before the witnesses were permitted to testify to any admissions made by the appellant. The jury was thereupon sent out, and counsel for the appellant proceeded to examine the witness upon the surroundings and how the appellant came to make the admissions. The witness testified that no threats were made against the accused and no inducements were held out to him, except that he was informed that the prosecuting attorney desired the truth, and that it would be better for the accused to tell the whole truth. Thereafter the court recalled the jury and permitted the witness to state all the confession with all of the surrounding circumstances. When the other witnesses to the confession were called, the court refused to send the jury out, and heard all the evidence relating to the confession, and permitted the same to be considered by the jury. It is argued by the appellant that it was the duty of the court to determine the voluntary or involuntary nature of the confession without the presence of the jury.
The statute provides: 'The confession of a defendant made under inducement, with all the circumstances, may be given as evidence against him, except when made under the influence produced by threats,' etc. 2 Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. § 6942 (Pierce's Code, § 2168). Under this statute, when it appears to the court that a confession is made under the influence of fear produced by threats, of course it is the duty of the court to exclude the evidence. It is proper for the court to hear the evidence relating to duress, and to decide upon the admissibility of such evidence; but there is nothing in the statute requiring such evidence to be taken without the presence of the jury. If the evidence is clear that no threats were made and that the admissions were voluntary, it cannot be error for the whole evidence to be heard by the jury. In State v. Mann, 39 Wash. 144, 81 P. 561, we said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Smith
...could hear argument after co-defendant made a sudden request to “ ‘verify’ ” a confession as it was being read); State v. Barker, 56 Wash. 510, 511–12, 106 P. 133 (1910) (trial judge sent the jury out so the court could discuss an objection to witness testimony); State v. Carlson, 80 Wash.A......
-
Smith v. State of Texas, Civ. A. No. 64-H-626.
...Denno, supra note 7, at 378, 84 S.Ct. at 1781 in footnote 8. 16 State v. Green, 221 La. 713, 60 So. 2d 208, 213 (1952); State v. Barker, 56 Wash. 510, 106 P. 133 (1910); Harrold v. Territory, 18 Okl. 395, 89 P. 202, 10 L.R.A.,N.S., 604 17 Page 37, lines 3-8 of the record of this Court's pro......
-
State v. Winters, 31694
...that it is for the jury to determine whether a confession was obtained under the influence of fear produced by threats. State v. Barker, 56 Wash. 510, 106 P. 133; State v. Wilson, 68 Wash. 464, 123 P. 795; State v. Kelch, 95 Wash. 277, 163 P. 757; State v. Van Brunt, 22 Wash.2d 103, 154 P.2......
-
State v. Kelch
... ... and gave another version of the conversation. There is no ... evidence that the confession was made under the influence of ... fear produced by threats, and it was therefore competent ... Section 2151, Rem. 1915 Code; State v. Barker, 56 ... Wash. 510, 106 P. 133; ... [163 P. 758.] State v. Brownlow, 89 Wash. 582, 154 P. 1099. Had ... the appellant admitted the confession, and claimed that it was ... made under the influence of fear produced by threats, and had ... the evidence upon this question been in ... ...