State v. Parsons
Decision Date | 25 March 1930 |
Docket Number | 6153. |
Citation | 152 S.E. 745,108 W.Va. 705 |
Parties | STATE v. PARSONS. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted March 11, 1930.
Syllabus by the Court.
When the representations of one in authority are calculated to foment hope or despair in the mind of the accused to any material degree, and a confession ensues, it cannot be deemed voluntary.
Error to Circuit Court, Taylor County.
Palace Parsons was convicted of breaking and entering another's chicken house with intent to steal, and he brings error.
Reversed and new trial awarded.
W. Bruce Talbott and E. Wayne Talbott, both of Philippi, for plaintiff in error.
Howard B. Lee, Atty. Gen., and W. Elliot Nefflen, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
Palace Parsons, Howard Mayle, and Ted Dalton were jointly charged with breaking and entering a chicken house of another, with intent to steal. Palace was tried separately, found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for two years. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and a confession of guilt by defendant.
The indictment has three counts. The defendant made a general motion to quash. The second and third counts do not contain the names of any of the accused, and are consequently invalid. The first count does not fix the date of the crime; but, as time is not of the essence of the offense, that omission is of no consequence under Code, c. 158, § 10. The first count charges that the chicken house was "burglariously" entered. That word may be omitted as surplusage, and the remainder of the count is sufficient under Code, c. 145,§ 13. As the first count is valid, the motion was properly overruled.
The statement of the law governing the admissibility of a confession, in 3 Russel on Crimes (5th Ed.) 478, has been preferred by many courts, and is as follows: Page 2157 (7th Ed.).
After quoting the above from Russel, the Supreme Court of the United States said, in Bram v. U. S., 168 U.S. 532, 543, 18 S.Ct. 183, 187, 42 L.Ed. 568:
The defendant says that he is not guilty, and that he so informed the officers; that Mr. Bolyard (a deputy sheriff) said to him: "We have all the evidence we want against you, if you don't own to it, the judge will give you ten years in the pen, if you do own to it maybe we will get you off at the reform school for seven or eight months"; and that he signed the statement (confession) because of the representations of Mr. Bolyard. The officer denies this conversation with defendant, and says that no threat or promise was used in obtaining the confession. Under cross-examination the officer does make the following admissions: The officer also admits that he had three separate conversations with Palace, at one of which he was asked if he did not want to make a statement (confession).
The defendant was an ignorant boy of sixteen years. He could not even write his own name, signing the confession by mark. Age education, and experience are elements to be considered in determining whether the remarks of the officer influenced the accused. Underhill on Crim. Ev. (2d Ed.), § 128. It is reasonable that the effect of Bolyard's admitted statements was to impress upon the untutored mind of the defendant that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial