State v. Picton
| Decision Date | 07 March 1899 |
| Docket Number | 13,056 |
| Citation | 25 So. 375,51 La.Ann. 624 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA v. WILLIAM C. PICTON |
Submitted February 25, 1899
ON APPEAL from the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Baker, J..
M. J Cunningham, Attorney General, and Robert H. Marr, District Attorney, (Chandler C. Luzenberg, of Counsel), for Plaintiff and Appellee.
J. H Ferguson and Henriques & Dunn, for Defendant, Appellant.
From a conviction for embezzlement and a sentence of eighteen months at hard labor, defendant appeals.
At the time of the commission of the offense with which he is charged, the accused was rate clerk of the Southern Pacific Railway Company.
As such it was part of his duty to receive money for freight sent over the lines of the company prepaid, and the averment of the bill of information is that he embezzled certain funds so received, placing the amount at seven dollars and thirty-nine cents.
He relies for reversal upon what is claimed to be an erroneous ruling of the trial judge in admitting the testimony of Fay, Pettigrew and Wermuth, witnesses for the prosecution, who testified to certain conduct and statements of the accused after the shortage in his accounts was discovered, but before any formal charge of violation of law had been preferred against him.
The contention of defendant is that the object, intent and scope of this testimony was to show that defendant had confessed and admitted his fault to Fay, assistant manager of the Southern Pacific Company, and therefore "one in authority."
The objection was to any such statement, or admission, or confession, on the ground that, if made, the same was occasioned and brought about by undue influences and through threats or promises made by said Fay, by means of which defendant was induced to admit a shortage in his accounts, and to agree to settle same in order to avoid publicity and escape prosecution.
All of the testimony relating to this feature of the case was taken down in writing, and comes up in the record as part of the bill of exceptions.
From it we learn that the accused had been for some years in the employment of the Southern Pacific Company; that within a day or two of the end of October, 1897, he suddenly left his position, and for several days his whereabouts were unknown to his employers; that an investigation of his accounts followed, and a shortage was discovered; that this becoming known, Mr. Givens, a brother-in-law of his, called to see Fay, manager of the company, and stating he understood defendant was in some trouble, asked that the matter be kept quiet until it could be investigated, and enquired if defendant would be given an opportunity to go over the accounts, to which Fay replied he would; that shortly afterwards, Givens, Ferguson and Kingston (the two latter, friends of the accused), called to see Fay, who had had some conversation over the telephone with Ferguson about the matter; that the object of this visit was to arrange an amicable settlement of the shortage, to the end of satisfying the claim of the company and relieving the defendant of the apprehension of prosecution; that several interviews on the subject were had by these parties with Fay; that the latter insisted the entire shortage, amounting to something like two thousand dollars, should be made good, and that if it were, so far as he and the company were concerned, the prosecution would not be pushed; that if it were not settled a vigorous prosecution would follow; that the matter was talked over between these parties and defendant and his wife; and that defendant, at his wife's insistance, and accompanied by her, and upon the advice of his brother-in-law, Givens, called upon Fay at his office on two occasions.
Defendant's version of what took place when he called to see Fay is, in substance, as follows: That he had been informed of the threat of prosecution if the matter was not settled; that to avoid publicity and for the sake of his family he went to see Fay; that he told the latter he was innocent and not guilty and that the shortage was the result of a series of mistakes; that he asked to see the list of items of the alleged shortage and the same was shown him; that Fay suggested the terms of a settlement which were that he (defendant) should pay one thousand dollars cash and give his notes, secured, for the balance, payable in monthly installments of $ 25.00; that he told Fay he would look into the matter and let him know; that there was no understanding between him and Fay as to immunity from prosecution in the event of settling the shortage, but the conversation with Fay was induced by the threat of prosecution which had been communicated to him, together with the promise of no steps being taken to prosecute if settlement were made; that when he had these conversations with Fay he (the accused) was not under the authority of Fay, nor in the employ of the Southern Pacific Company, and had not been for over two months, and was in the service of a Mr. McGuire; and that while neither Fay, nor other parties representing the company, had told him they could stop the prosecution, he (defendant) knew things had been hushed up before.
Manager Fay's version of what took place between defendant and himself is, in effect, as follows: That defendant and his wife came to his office as the result of a previous appointment made by his (defendant's) brother-in-law that he (Fay) sent for Wermuth (in the employ of the company) and Pettigrew, who was agent of the security company that had gone on defendant's bond; that these parties came and defendant asked Wermuth to show him the statement of the shortage, which he did, and he and Wermuth had some conversation about the shortage; that since defendant claimed the shortage was due to mistakes, it was offered him to go over the accounts and point out the mistakes and the services of a man to assist in the investigation were tendered him; and that h...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Andrus
...into evidence was required for the admission of this statement. In 1899, more than 68 years ago, this court decided State v. Picton, 51 La.Ann. 624, 25 So. 375, a landmark case in which the court discussed the distinction between admissions of inculpatory facts and confessions of guilt, "A ......
-
Brown v. State
...but which also gives a legal justification or excuse, is not a confession. State v. Crowder, 41 Kan. 101, 21 P. 208; State v. Picton, 51 La.Ann. 624, 25 So. 375. With the foregoing statement of the applicable rules of law in mind, we now turn to the appellant's statement, which the State co......
-
Lawrence v. State
... ... voluntarily before they are competent evidence against ... See, ... also, State v. Reinhart, 26 Or. 466, 38 P ... 822; Riley v. State, 1 Ga.App. 651, 57 S.E ... 1031; State v. Novak, 110 Iowa 717, 79 N.W ... 465; State v. Picton, 51 La. Ann. 624, 25 ... The ... court did not err in permitting the cross-examination of Babe ... Lawrence along the lines objected to ... The ... sixth assignment of error is that the court erred in giving ... to the jury a charge on first degree murder at all, and that ... ...
-
State v. McCullough
... ... for the introduction of such evidence has no relevancy to ... exculpatory [168 La. 169] statements made by the ... accused." See, also, State v. Howard, 127 La ... 435, 53 So. 677; State v. Williams, 120 La. 175, 45 ... So. 94; State v. Picton, 51 La.Ann. 624, 25 So. 375 ... The fact that the deputy sheriff communicated to Pearson that ... McCullough had confessed and implicated him did not affect ... his answer. As observed by the state, the only result of that ... communication to Pearson was to strengthen him in his denial ... ...