State v. Winters, 31694

• Decision Date: 05 November 1951
• Docket Number: No. 31694,31694
• Citation: 39 Wn.2d 545,236 P.2d 1038
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE, v. WINTERS.

Page 545

39 Wn.2d 545

236 P.2d 1038

STATE, v. WINTERS.

No. 31694.

Supreme Court of Washington, Department 1.

Nov. 5, 1951.

Richard D. Harris, Seattle, for appellant.

Charles O. Carroll, John L. Vogel, Seattle, for respondent.

MALLERY, Justice.

The defendant was convicted on each of seven counts of an information. Counts, I, III, V, and VII were for the crime of rape. Count IV was for attempted rape. Count II was for robbery, which charged the crime was committed in connection with the rape charge in count I. Count VI charged the crime of robbery, committed in connection with the rape charged in count V. From the judgments and sentences rendered thereon, the defendant prosecutes this appeal.

No contention was made at the trial, not on this appeal, that the acts proved were insufficient to constitute the crimes charged. The crux of this case is the identity of the person who committed them. We may, therefore, properly omit the details of the crimes.

It may be stated at the outset that as to only one count was there a definite face identification of the appellant. In the other counts, while the person of the assailant was suitably described as a very large Negro, identical in size, build, clothes, and general appearance to the appellant, he was not otherwise identified. But for the appellant's confession, the evidence would be insufficient to sustain six of the counts in the information.

The appellant was arrested on February 3, 1950, for an assault having nothing to do with any of the counts in the instant case. His wife talked to him in the city jail on February 4, 6, and 9, 1950. She contacted two members of the Seattle bar on his behalf. He was questioned at length on a number of occasions by detectives after his arrest on February 3, 1950, and on February 9, 1950, he submitted to a sodium pentathol test by a psychiatrist, at which time his wife was present. He claims he was promised a release if the 'truth serum' test showed he was not guilty. The effect of the sodium pentathol lasts for one and one-half hours. The next day, on February 10, 1950, appellant made a written confession, which was introduced in evidence. The entire conversation, at that time, was recorded on a Pearce Wire Recorder, and was played for the jury.

Appellant admits he was not beaten or threatened with violence. His counsel, several times during the trial, disavowed any claim of violence or threat of it. He testified at length and in detail as to the conversations and circumstances regarding his confession. The testimony upon which he predicated his requested instructions is as follows: 'Q. Now, was there anything else said in that conversation? A. Like I said, Mr. Harris, he had been speaking about another case, another charge that hasn't been brought up here. Q. And then, after you were through talking about that other case, what happened? A. Well, sir, when we finished talking about that case, he said, 'You sign your name to it, and if you don't sign it, we will keep you in the City Jail the rest of your life.' After I signed my name, he threw it--he had a stack of them on the desk, and he picked several cases out, which I believe were the same cases we are in court now for. He picked them out, and then he begin to talk about them.' (Italics ours.)

Appellant assigns error upon the refusal of the court to give the following instructions:

'(1) You are instructed that admissions made by the defendant charged with a crime, when such admissions are not caused by duress or fear produced by threats, are to be considered by the jury in connection with all the other evidence in the case in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, and their weight as evidence, like that of any other fact, is to be determined by you alone. If the find that the defendant was persuaded to make admissions because of constant and long periods of questioning or because of threats made to keep him in jail unless and until he confessed you are at liberty them to disregard any such statements or admissions made by the defendant.

'(2) If you find that the defendant was persuaded to make admissions because of constant and long periods of questioning, or because threats were made to keep him in jail unless and until he confessed, you are at liberty them to disregard any such statements or admissions made by the defendant.' (Italics ours.)

The use of confessions in criminal trials is governed by Rem.Rev.Stat. § 2151, which provides: 'The confession of a defendant made under inducement, with all the circumstances, may be given as evidence against him, except when made under the influence of fear produced by threats, but a confession made under inducement is not sufficient to warrant a conviction without corroborating testimony.'

As late as State v. Meyer, 37 Wash.2d 759, 226 P.2d 204, 210, this court said: 'We have decided that it is for the jury to determine whether a confession was obtained under the influence of fear produced by threats. State v. Barker, 56 Wash. 510, 106 P. 133; State v. Wilson, 68 Wash. 464, 123 P. 795; State v. Kelch, 95 Wash. 277, 163 P. 757; State v. Van Brunt, 22 Wash.2d 103, 154 P.2d 606. * * *'

In State v. Van Brunt, 22 Wash.2d 103, 154 P.2d 606, 608, we said: 'An analysis of these cases reveals that, where an issue of fact arises as to the question of the influence of fear produced by threats and confessions made under inducement, it is not a question of law for the court to decide but is a question of fact for the jury under...