State v. Paul Zaccario
| Decision Date | 06 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 5341) |
| Citation | 100 W.Va. 36 |
| Parties | State v. Paul Zaccario |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
1. Criminal Law Conditions to Render Admissible Evidence of Extrajudicial Confession to One in Authority or Some Person Acting Under Apparent Sanction of Those in Authority Stated.
To render admissible evidence of an extra-judicial confession by an accused to one in authority, or some person acting under the apparent sanction of those in authority, it must appear that the confession was freely and voluntarily made and without previous inducements of a temporal or worldly character in the nature of threats or intimidation, or some promise or benefit held out to the accused by which he may expect mitigation of punishment or to escape from the consequence of his crime.
(Criminal Law, 16 C. J. §§ 1468, 1509).
Error to Circuit Court, Monongalia County. Paul Zaccario was convicted of violation of the prohibition laws, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Eugene H. Long, for plaintiff in error. Howard B. Lee, Attorney General, and R. A. Blessing, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
An indictment in two counts was returned against the defendant, charging him (1) with owning, operating, maintaining, possessing and having an interest in a moonshine still; and (2) with aiding and abetting in the operation thereof. To the judgment of the Circuit Court, upon a verdict of conviction "as charged in the indictment", imposing a fine of $300 and sentence of two and a half years in the penitentiary, he prosecutes this writ, Having a warrant for the search of the dwelling house and premises of the defendant, J. S. Watson, a constable, accompanied by two other persons, went to the home of defendant at 10:30 or 11:00 o'clock at night, August 19, 1924. In the yard, "about forty-eight steps from the house", they found seventeen pints of moonshine liquor. There was also discovered next morning, one-fourth mile from the residence, two stills and three hundred gallons of mash.
In addition to these facts, the prosecution introduced, over the objection of defendant, evidence of an alleged confession by him after his arrest to the jailor and arresting officer, without showing that it had been freely and voluntarily made. The defendant denied the confession and stated, without contradiction, he was assaulted by the jailor for refusing to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Plantz
...108 W.Va. 681, 152 S.E. 633; State v. Brady, 104 W.Va. 523, 140 S.E. 546; State v. Richards, 101 W.Va. 136, 132 S.E. 375; State v. Zaccario, 100 W.Va. 36, 129 S.E. 763; State Goldizen, 93 W.Va. 328, 116 S.E. 687; State v. Morgan, 35 W.Va. 260, 13 S.E. After the trial court determines that a......
-
State v. Stevenson
...the circumstances, he is not entitled to a new trial.' Counsel for the defendant rely upon the decisions of this Court in State v. Zaccario, 100 W.Va. 36, 129 S.E. 763; State v. Brady, 104 W.Va. 523, 140 S.E. 546; and State v. Mayle, 108 W.Va. 681, 152 S.E. 633. The single syllabus point in......
-
State v. Farley
...to its admissibility that the voluntariness of a confession is established by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Zaccario, 100 W.Va. 36, 129 S.E. 763 (1925). A mere prima facie showing is insufficient. State v. Starr, 158 W.Va. 905, 216 S.E.2d 242 (1975). Once that decision is made, ......
-
State v. Vance
...523, 140 S.E. 546. See also State v. Mayle, 108 W.Va. 681, 152 S.E. 633; State v. Richards, 101 W.Va. 136, 132 S.E. 375; State v. Zaccario, 100 W.Va. 36, 129 S.E. 763; State v. Goldizen, 93 W.Va. 328, 116 S.E. 687. The evidence was sufficient to show to the satisfaction of the court that th......