State v. Barker

Decision Date08 January 1910
Citation106 P. 133,56 Wash. 510
PartiesSTATE v. BARKER.
CourtWashington 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.

MOUNT J.

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 &amp 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: 'The question whether a defendant is under the influence of fear produced by threats, when he makes statements imputing guilt of the crime charged against him, is a mixed question of law and fact, and the proper way to ascertain the fact is to have the witness detail the circumstances surrounding their making, and all that was said and done preliminary thereto which led to their making. From this the court is much better able to judge whether the admissions are admissible under the statutory rule than it would be were a question asked in the words of the statute and the opinion of the witness taken...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 25, 2014
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • January 13, 1965
    ...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
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 5, 1951
    ...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
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1917
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • 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