State v. Mcdaniels

Decision Date11 February 1921
Docket NumberNo. 2467.,2467.
Citation27 N.M. 59,196 P. 177
PartiesSTATEv.MCDANIELS ET AL.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court.

Severance of trial of two or more defendants jointly indicted for the same offense is discretionary with the trial court, and its action will not be reviewed by this court unless such discretion is abused.

Where the court expressly limits testimony as to admissions or confessions made by one defendant to such defendant alone, it is not error to deny a separate trial to each defendant.

The admission or rejection of a confession in the first instance is for the court to determine. If, after it is admitted by the court as voluntary, a conflict of evidence arises as to its voluntary character, the question of whether voluntary or not is for the jury under proper instructions.

Appeal from District Court, Grant County; Ryan, Judge.

Jesse D. McDaniels and Harry Tellos were convicted of second degree murder, and they appeal. Affirmed.

Refusal of separate trial to one of several persons jointly indicted will not be reviewed in absence of abuse of discretion.

J. H. Shettler and Alvan N. White, both of Silver City, for appellants.

H. S. Bowman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

RAYNOLDS, J.

The appellants, Jesse D. McDaniels and Harry Tellos, were indicted and tried jointly at the September, 1919, term of the district court for the county of Grant for the murder of Alfonso Cordova, resulting in a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree. Motion for a new trial was overruled and appellants sentenced to the penitentiary, McDaniels for a period of 99 years and Tellos for 75 years, from which verdict and sentence the appellants appealed to this court.

The appellants rely upon two propositions for reversal of the judgment of the court below: First, that the court erred in refusing to grant the motion of the appellant McDaniels for a severance and a separate trial; and, second, that the confession of the appellant Tellos was improperly admitted because it was not voluntary.

[1] The law in regard to both of these propositions is well settled in this state. Severance of trials where two defendants are jointly indicted is a matter of discretion of the trial court, and is not a ground for reversal unless such discretion is abused. This doctrine is laid down in the case of Territory v. Clark, 15 N. M. 35, at page 44, 99 Pac. 697, and the general proposition as above stated is found with numerous cases cited in 16 C. J. 784, § 2006, note 68.

[2] It is argued, however, by the appellant McDaniels, that a severance should have been granted him because of admissions and confessions made by Tellos involving the appellant McDaniels. This contention is without merit in this case, as the rights of McDaniels were properly safeguarded by an instruction of the court hereinafter set out. The general rule is as follows:

“If one of several defendants jointly indicted has made admissions or confessions involving another defendant, the court may in its discretion order a separate trial, so that admissions or confessions while evidence against one may not prejudice the other, unless the prosecuting attorney expressly declares that such statements will not be offered in evidence on the trial. It is not error to deny a separate trial on such ground where the court expressly limits testimony as to the admissions or confessions made by one defendant to such defendant alone.” 16 C. J. 787, § 2009.

See, also, Ball v. U. S., 163 U. S. 662, 672, 16 Sup. Ct. 1192, 41 L. Ed. 300; Commonwealth v. Bingham, 158 Mass. 169, 33 N. E. 341; People v. Hotz, 261 Ill. 239, 103 N. E. 1007, 1014.

The trial court as appears from the transcript limited the testimony of the appellant Tellos, and expressly charged the jury that such confession did not affect the appellant McDaniels. The instruction given by the court was as follows:

“There has been introduced in evidence before you statements purporting to have been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State v. Fox
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 3 Diciembre 1932
    ... ... defendant against whom it was introduced, as the court did ... herein, both specifically at the time such evidence was ... introduced and also when all the instructions were given at ... the conclusion of the case. ( State v. McDaniels , 27 ... N.M. 59, 196 P. 177; State v. Clark , 156 Wash. 47, ... 286 P. 69; People v. Anderson , 75 Cal.App. 365, 242 ... P. 906; People v. Trotter , 120 Cal.App. 54, 7 P.2d ... That ... each defendant desired to be a witness for the other was no ... ground for a separate trial. ( ... ...
  • State v. Lord
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 8 Octubre 1938
    ...that this discretion was abused his action in overruling appellant Smith's motion for a severance will not be disturbed. State v. McDaniels, 27 N.M. 59, 196 P. 177; Ballard v. Commonwealth, 156 Va. 980, 159 S.E. 222. [2] All of the defendants, excepting Powell, signed written confessions, o......
  • State v. Lord
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 8 Octubre 1938
    ...this discretion was abused his action in overruling appellant Smith's motion for a severance will not be disturbed. State v. McDaniels, 27 N.M. 59, 196 P. 177; Ballard v. Commonwealth, 156 Va. 980, 159 S.E. 222. All of the defendants, excepting Powell, signed written confessions, or admissi......
  • State v. Ochoa
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 25 Agosto 1937
    ...discretion and no abuse is evident in the denial thereof. Only for abuse of such discretion may this court interfere. State v. McDaniels, 27 N.M. 59, 196 P. 177; State v. Smith, 30 N.M. 364, 234 P. 467; State v. Watts, 35 N.M. 94, 290 P. 738. Because of the presence of conspiracy in the cha......
  • 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