State v. Kinder
| Decision Date | 20 December 1888 |
| Citation | 96 Mo. 548,10 S.W. 77 |
| Parties | STATE v. KINDER. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from criminal court, Johnson county; JOHN E. RYLAND, Judge.
Mr. Sparks, for appellant. B. G. Boone, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The defendant appealed from a conviction had in the criminal court of Johnson county on an indictment for larceny committed in the dwelling-house of John Hopkins. Hopkins and Constable Hurt went from Johnson county to Lexington, La Fayette county, with a warrant, and there arrested the defendant. They placed him in the jail at that place on the night of the arrest, and on the succeeding day took him to Johnson county, before the justice by whom the warrant was issued. Hopkins and Officer Hurt both testify to confessions made by the defendant to them while he was in jail, and while on the road the next day. These confessions were all made in the presence of the officer, and while defendant was in his custody. Hurt and Hopkins testified that the confessions were not procured by threats or promises. Hopkins was the first witness for the state, and when he came to relate these confessions the defendant asked the court to cause the jury to be withdrawn that the court might hear the evidence, and pass upon its admissibility. The jurors were withdrawn, and, after Hopkins had related the circumstances under which the confessions were made, the defendant offered to show by other evidence that the confessions were not voluntary, but were made from fear and compulsion. The judge refused to hear the evidence. During the trial the defendant called Charles Barr, who testified that he was in the jail at Lexington when Hopkins and the constable came there; that they told the defendant that they had him, and he had better acknowledge that he took the property; that defendant made no acknowledgment, and one of them said he had better acknowledge or they would break his neck, string him up, or something to that effect. Hurt and Hopkins both say that on the road the next day they had a new rope, about the size of a clothes line, but that they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Menz
...competent evidence offered on the question as a basis for determining, in the first instance, whether it shall go before the jury. [State v. Kinder, 96 Mo. 548; State v. Stebbins, 188 Mo. 387, 87 S.W. 460; State v. Nagle, 326 Mo. 661, 32 S.W. (2d) 596.] If rejected, of course, the matter is......
-
State v. Nagle
...of the alleged confession out of the jury's hearing and in the appellant's case in chief in the presence of the jury. State v. Kinder, 96 Mo. 548; 16 C.J. 738; State v. McKenzie, 144 Mo. 45; State v. Martin, 28 Mo. 530; State v. Condit, 270 S.W. 286; Sec. 5242, R.S. 1919; Underhill on Crim.......
-
State v. Nagle
... ... objections to the appellant's offers of proof thereon, ... over appellant's exceptions, both in the preliminary ... inquiry into the admissibility of the alleged confession out ... of the jury's hearing and in the appellant's case in ... chief in the presence of the jury. State v. Kinder, ... 96 Mo. 548; 16 C. J. 738; State v. McKenzie, 144 Mo ... 45; State v. Martin, 28 Mo. 530; State v ... Condit, 270 S.W. 286; Sec. 5242, R. S. 1919; Underhill ... on Crim. Ev. (2 Ed.) 246; 12 Cyc. p. 481; State v ... Church, 199 Mo. 605; McKelvey on Ev., sec. 84, sec. 126, ... ...
-
State v. Menz
... ... inadmissible, it becomes the duty of the judge to hear and ... consider all competent evidence offered on the question as a ... basis for determining, in the first instance, whether it ... shall go before the jury. [ State v. Kinder, 96 Mo ... 548; State v. Stebbins, 188 Mo. 387, 87 S.W. 460; ... State v. Nagle, 326 Mo. 661, 32 S.W.2d 596.] If ... rejected, of course, the matter is at an end; but if, in ... consequence of the determination of this preliminary ... question, it is admitted in evidence, the question of ... ...