State v. Jones

• Decision Date: 03 January 1911
• Docket Number: 18,518
• Citation: 53 So. 959,127 La. 694
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. JONES

53 So. 959

127 La. 694

STATE v. JONES

No. 18,518

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 3, 1911

Appeal from Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Grant; W F. Blackman, Judge.

Mary Jane Jones was convicted of arson, and she appeals. Reversed and remanded.

C. H McCain and J. A. Williams, for appellant.

Walter Guion, Atty. Gen., and John R. Hunter, Dist. Atty. (R. G Pleasant, of counsel), for the State.

PROVOSTY J. BREAUX, C.J., concurs.

OPINION

PROVOSTY, J.

The defendant, a colored woman, was convicted of the arson of a cabin, and was sentenced to five years in the penitentiary.

On her arrest, in the parish of Grant, where the offense was committed, she was, for some reason not explained, taken to the jail of the parish of Rapides. On the way, on the train, she made a confession to the deputy sheriff who had her in charge. When this confession was sought to be proved, she objected that it had not been voluntary; and, as a witness in her own behalf, she testified that the confession was induced by fear and excitement brought on by an announcement made to her by the deputy sheriff that he was taking her to the penitentiary. The deputy sheriff says that he made that remark in a jocular vein, as he explained to her immediately, telling her the truth with regard to their destination; and that what induced the confession was his telling her that her paramour, Johnson Boyd, was "getting shut" of her, and that another woman, Mary Beek, "had turned her up"; that, on receiving this information, she became violently angry, and said "If you will give me a pistol I will kill both the G d s of b s, and you can then hang me"; and went on a tirade against Mary Beek and Johnson Boyd, in the course of which she made a clean breast of the arson. Under these circumstances, the confession could be rejected only on the assumption that the deputy sheriff had deliberately given false testimony.

The defendant also complains of the refusal to allow her to prove admissions made by one Eli Williams, both verbally and in a letter, that it was he who had burned the cabin in question. It seems to be well settled that an admission of guilt of this kind made out of court by a third person is inadmissible, whether verbal or written. State v. West, 45 La.Ann. 928, 13 So. 173; Id., 45 La.Ann. 15, 12 So. 7; 16 Cyc. 1199. The sworn statements made out of court are admissible where sought to be proved simply to show rem ipsam -- that they were made -- but not for the purpose of having them accepted as true. In the instant case, the purpose was to have the statement accepted as true.

Lastly, defendant complains of remarks made by the district attorney in his closing argument to the jury. The parties do not agree as to what the remarks were. In the bill of exceptions as prepared by defendant's counsel the remarks are said to have been, as follows:

"Williams says that in this case I have lost control of myself; that in his speech he states to you that he has never seen me lose such control of myself in his life. Gentlemen, I want now and here, in reply to this charge of Mr. Williams, to enter an emphatic plea of guilt. I did lose control of myself; every drop of my white man's blood did boil in me, and the white man's blood of other men in this courthouse rose up in righteous indignation when this negro woman on trial, in a crowded courthouse in the parish of Grant, and in the town of Colfax, with its past history, used slanderous and language against the officers of Grant parish and against white men."

The Judge's per curiam is as follows:

"On the witness stand, defendant swore that she was so frightened she did...