State v. Gorham
| Decision Date | 04 February 1895 |
| Citation | 67 Vt. 365,31 A. 845 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. GORHAM. |
Exceptions from Orange county court; Ross, Chief Judge.
W. M. Gorham was convicted of arson, and excepts. Affirmed.
R. m. Harvey and J. K. Darling, for respondent.
Geo. L. Stowe, State's Arty., for the State.
The prisoner's confession to Mrs, Parish was made when he was shackled and in custody, without counsel, and expecting to die from the effects of poison taken after his arrest Testimony was introduced by both sides on the preliminary inquiry whether the confession was voluntary, or whether Mrs. Parish held out inducements to the prisoner, and thereby obtained it The court found that the confession was made of the prisoner's own motion, without any inducement, and admitted it in evidence. The prisoner excepted to its admission, and especially because it was made when he was without counsel, and also excepted to the court's determining from the testimony whether it was voluntary or obtained by inducements, and to be admitted or rejected accordingly. It will be seen from the cases cited in the note to Daniels v. State, 6 Am. St. Rep. 243, and from State v. Patterson, 73 Mo. 695, 707, and Jackson v. State, 69 Ala. 249, that none of the circumstances in which the confession was made, it being voluntary, rendered it inadmissible. In the case last cited, confessions were admitted that were made while the accused were in prison, to an officer in authority, in the absence of friends and counsel, it appearing that no threats nor promises were made. There are some cases to the contrary, but we are not inclined to follow them, as we regard them opposed to the weight of authority and to the reason of the thing. But, of course, the circumstances in which a confession is made are always to be considered, in determining its weight as evidence, although they do not make it incompetent testimony. It is for the trial court, and not for the jury, to say whether a confession is admissible or not; and if the testimony on that preliminary inquiry is conflicting, the decision of that court is final, but, if not conflicting, its decision admitting the confession is revisable here. This is not denied, but it is strenuously claimed that this case comes within the latter part of this rule, for that the undisputed testimony of the witness Hyzer shows that he had a talk with the prisoner just before he confessed to Mrs. Parish, wherein he told the prisoner that if he did it, it would be very much better for him to make a clean breast of it. This point was argued by both sides as though Hyzer testified on the "preliminary inquiry, whereas the fact is, as shown by the testimony, that he did not testify on such inquiry, nor testify at all until he was called by the prisoner, when putting in his testimony on the main case; and the prisoner's testimony does not show that he claimed to have been influenced in the least by what Hyzer said to him. Besides, it does not appear that the court was asked, when Hyzer's testimony came in, to then exclude the confession, nor to take any other action in view of his testimony. It appears, therefore, that the matter of Hyzer's testimony on this point affords no ground for the argument based upon it.
On cross-examination of the officer who arrested the prisoner, and who hoped for the rewards that had been offered, the prisoner's counsel were not permitted to ask the witness whether he thought certain things to which he had testified, mostly in chief, were suspicious circumstances. It does not appear that the witness had testified to having had his suspicions aroused, nor to having done anything by reason of his suspicions, nor that he characterized as suspicious anything to which he had testified, but rather the contrary appears. The matter falls, therefore, within the rule that a witness is not to give his opinion nor to characterize his testimony, because it is irrelevant.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crank
... ... discretion where there is substantial evidence from which it ... could reasonably so find. See Wigmore on Evidence, Third Ed., ... Vol. Ill, Sec. 862; Osborn v. People , 83 ... Colo. 4, 262 P. 892; Mangum v. United ... States , 9 Cir., 289 F. 213; State v ... Gorham , 67 Vt. 365, 31 A. 845; State v ... Cross , 72 Conn. 722, 46 A. 148. The case of ... State v. Wells , supra, and other cases ... above cited as approving it, also hold to this doctrine, ... although they do not require the trial court to decide the ... question of voluntariness of the ... ...
-
Mortimore v. State
... ... State, 80 Miss. 592, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 768-874, and a ... later note under Lindsey v. State, 66 Fla. 341, 50 ... L.R.A. (N.S.) 1077-1089. That the accused was not represented ... by counsel will not alone exclude a confession. (McCleary v ... State, supra; State v. Gorham, 67 Vt. 365, 31 A ... 845; State v. Patterson, 68 N.C. 292; ... Commonwealth v. Sturtivant, 117 Mass. 122, 19 Am ... Rep. 401.) ... The ... statements do not appear to have been made under any promise ... or threat, or any improper inducement. On the contrary, the ... ...
-
State v. Goyet
...to an officer in authority, or in the absence of friends or counsel, it appearing that no threats or promises were made. State v. Gorham, 67 Vt. 365, 367, 31 A. 845. A confession is not rendered inadmissible merely by the fact that it was obtained by an undue delay between arrest and the ti......
-
State v. Kerns
...the determination by the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal, unless manifestly against the weight of the evidence. State v. Gorham, 67 Vt. 365, 31 A. 845, 10 Am. Crim. Rep. 25; State v. Grover, 96 Me. 363, 52 A. 757, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 128; State v. Berberick, 38 Mont. 423, 100 P. 2......