State v. Shepard
| Decision Date | 25 May 1894 |
| Citation | 59 N.W. 449,88 Wis. 185 |
| Parties | STATE v. SHEPARD ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to circuit court, Ashland county; J. K. Parish, Judge.
Joseph Shepard and others were convicted of robbery and stealing from the person, and bring error. Reversed.A. R. Mead, for plaintiffs in error.
J. L. O'Connor, Atty. Gen., and J. M. Clancey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendants were in formed against, tried, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for the crime of robbery and stealing from the person of one Joseph Preedon the sum of $20. As we understand the record, there are but two assignments of error: (1) The court admitted in evidence the confession of the defendant Joseph Shepard to the police officers while he was in custody in the common jail, and the evidence had its effect on the jury, and then the court excluded it as being a confession made under duress, and extorted by threats, promises, and by falsehood. The court should have determined whether the confession was admissible before it was given in evidence. (2) That the court, after having excluded the confession as incompetent, allowed the district attorney to cross-examine the defendant Shepard, who had offered himself as a witness, as to whether he made such confession, and, he having denied it, allowed evidence on behalf of the state to contradict the testimony of Shepard by evidence that he did make such confession, and the particulars thereof.
1. We are of the opinion that said first error is well assigned. The testimony was before the court as to the manner in which the confession had been obtained, and the court should have decided it as a preliminary question before admitting the whole confession in evidence. Every word of the confession was fastened on the mind of the jury, and had made its impression there against the accused. Its subsequent rejection by the court would not erase or remove that impression. It had produced its lasting effect upon the jury, and must have affected their verdict. The remarks of the learned judge in ruling upon the objections to the evidence were well calculated to deepen the impression already made by the evidence upon the minds of the jury. We cannot but think that this was a material error, and prejudicial to the accused.
2. The method here adopted to get the confession of Joseph Shepard in evidence, after it had been excluded by the court as being incompetent and inadmissible by reason of its having been extorted by promises of immunity and threats of injury and by falsehood, was certainly very ingenious and plausible.It would seem as if it was made to fit the case of Com. v. Tollifer, 119 Mass. 313. It was this case that induced the court to admit the evidence. That was also a case of robbery, and by more than one defendant, and one of them made a confession to the officers in the jail. The testimony of the officer was first taken as to the manner in which the confession was obtained (and the manner was about the same as in this case), and the court ruled that the confession was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma
... ... therefore admissions so obtained have no just and ... legitimate tendency to prove the facts admitted.' ... In ... State v. Novak, 109 Iowa, 717, 79 N.W. 465, the opinion ... 'The ... reason for the rule excluding involuntary confession is not ... based on ... ...
-
Wold v. State
... ... As early as 1894 in Shepard and others v. State, 88 Wis. 185, 59 N.W. 449, this court held that a confession which was obtained by the police through extortion could not be used for impeachment. The court said it was unfair to the accused to use such evidence for impeachment when it was inadmissible in chief. This language ... ...
-
Gaertner v. State
...witness stand in his own behalf, but this question seems to have been settled in Wisconsin. At least 70 years ago in Shephard v. State (1894), 88 Wis. 185, 59 N.W. 449, we 'The confession was rejected because it was extorted. It was unfair to the accused, and should not be proved against hi......
-
State ex rel. La Follette v. Raskin
...1945), 153 F.2d 497. This same reasoning was applied in Jackson v. Denno, supra, and very early in this state in Shephard v. State (1894), 88 Wis. 185, 59 N.W. 449, as to the prejudicial effect of an inadmissible confession on the issue of guilt. Applicable to a confession once heard by a j......