State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 11 February 1895 |
| Citation | 18 So. 482,72 Miss. 420 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE v. J. F. SMITH |
October 1894
FROM the circuit court of Clarke county, HON. S. H. TERRAL, Judge.
J. F Smith was indicted for arson and acquitted, and the state appeals, assigning for error the action of the court in excluding from evidence a written confession of guilt. The facts relative to the confession are as follows:
The Stonewall Manufacturing Company owned and operated a mill, or factory, and, in connection therewith, a store, the whole being in charge of one Wainwright, as secretary and superintendent. An unsuccessful attempt had been made to burn the store, and the circumstances pointed to Smith as incendiary. Wainwright employed one Brown to work up the case against Smith, agreeing to pay him $ 25 in any event, and as much as $ 100 if he succeeded in finding evidence sufficient to warrant a prosecution. Brown thereupon went to work on the case, and, after several weeks, induced Smith to go with him to the office of Wainwright; and there Brown and Wainwright told Smith they had evidence sufficient to convict him of setting the store on fire, and told him of some of the circumstances tending to show his guilt. Smith earnestly protested his innocence. Wainwright finally withdrew from the office and left him with Brown. What then passed between Smith and Brown is not shown, but when Wainwright returned Brown said to him that Smith wished to talk to him privately and after Brown had retired, Smith said to Wainwright Wainwright said: Thereupon Smith again denied setting the store on fire, and Brown returned to the office. In the interview, Wainwright told Smith that the evidence was enough to convict him, and that he had better own up. To this Smith replied: "I will give you satisfaction tomorrow morning;" and when Wainwright asked him what he meant by satisfaction, Smith said: "What will you do with me if I confess?" Wainwright said: "You will have to go to the penitentiary and wear stripes, but there ought to be a difference as to whether you go there for a long term or a short term;" and he said that "if he would go before the courts on an open confession, and not put the company to the expense of hiring a lawyer and prosecuting him, if he was put in for a longer term than Wainwright thought he deserved, he would use every honorable, upright and legitimate means with the court and district attorney to have his sentence lessened." After Wainwright had thus spoken, Smith again said that he did not do it, and Wainwright said: Smith continued, however, to deny his guilt, but again said he would give them satisfaction the next morning; and the three parted with an agreement to meet at the house of Wainwright the next morning. On the next morning, however, Smith sent word to Wainwright that he was sick and could not see him. Wainwright thereupon went to the home of Smith, and found him in bed claiming to be sick. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owen v. State
...was free and voluntary, it must be excluded from the jury. Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44; Williams v. State, 72 Miss. 117; State v. Smith, 72 Miss. 420; Whip State, 143 Miss. 757; Ammons v. State, 80 Miss. 592; Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 196; Jones v. State, 133 Miss. 684; Banks v. State, 93......
-
Pullen v. State
...... disturbing cause. . . . Simon v. State, 37 Miss. 288; Underhill on Criminal. Evidence (2 Ed.), sec. 126; MeMahon's case, 15 N.Y. 384;. Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44, 3 So. 188; Williama. v. State, 72 Miss. 117, 16 So. 296; State v. Smith, 72 Miss. 420, 18 So. 482; Simmons v. State, 61 Miss. 243; Bishop's New Criminal. Procedure, sections 1237-38; Ammons v. State, 80 Miss. 592,. 32 So. 9, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 768. . . It was. the business of the court (not the jury) to pass on the. question of this confession, ......
-
Keeton v. State
...... is not an indispensable element of the crime of murder, and. there seems to be no good reason why the jury should not be. told this. . . Johnson. v. State, 140 Miss. 889, 105 So. 742; House v. State, 94 Miss. 107, 48 So. 3; Buckler v. State, 157 So. 353; Motley v. Smith, 157 So. 553. . . It was. the jury's duty to consider all the facts and. circumstances in evidence and determine whether this prisoner. was a party to the actual homicide. Surely, the court, on. this record, could not charge that so far as the defendant. was concerned it was not ......
-
Brown v. State
...... punished. . . Coffee. v. State, 6 So. 493; Frank v. State, 39 Miss. 705;. Peter v. State, 4 S. & M. 31; Simon v. State, 37 Miss. 388; Mathews v. State, 59 So. 842; Banks v. State, 47 So. 437; State v. Smith, 18 So. 482; White v. State, 91 So. 150;. Sweat Box case, 32 So. 9; 28 So. 852; Stubbs v. State, 114 So. 827; Lofton v. State, 116 So. 435; Fisher v. State, 110 So. 361; Johnson v. State, 140 So. 683; Hathorn v. State, 102 So. 771; Ellis v. State, 3 So. 188; Harmon v. State, ......