Taylor v. State

• Decision Date: 04 October 1893
• Citation: 56 N.W. 623,37 Neb. 788
• Parties: TAYLOR v. STATE.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

37 Neb. 788

56 N.W. 623

TAYLOR

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Oct. 4, 1893.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A confession receivable in evidence only after proof that it was made voluntarily is restricted to an acknowledgment of the defendant's guilt, and the word does not apply to a statement made by the defendant of facts which tend to establish his guilt.

2. Any circumstance tending to establish the prisoner's guilt may be proved, although it was brought to light by an admission of the prisoner, inadmissible of itself, as having been obtained by improper influence.

Commissioners' decision. Error to district court, Lancaster county; Chapman, Judge.

John Taylor, having been convicted of murder, brings error. Affirmed.E. P. Holmes and Chas. E. Magoon, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. H. Hastings, Atty. Gen., for the State.

RAGAN, C.

John Taylor was convicted in the district court of Lancaster county of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life. The crime for which he was tried and convicted was the shooting on the night of April 22, 1889, of one Robert Woods. The murdered man was at the time at home, in his bed. The fatal shot was probably from a doubled–barreled shotgun loaded with leaden slugs, and fired through a window in Woods' house. The evidence on which Taylor was convicted was circumstantial. During the trial the state sought to prove by the sheriff a confession made to him by Taylor, that he committed the murder. The court excluded the jury from the court room during the preliminary examination of the sheriff, to ascertain whether the alleged confession was made under such circumstances as to be competent evidence against Taylor. On the return of the jury to the court room, and in their presence, the trial judge ruled out the offer of the state as to Taylor's confession,and, in so doing, said: “The person that was in the cell with him was concerned to bring that about, and I have concluded, after looking the authorities up, that I will exclude the admission. I think it infringes on the rule in this one respect: The inducement that was offered by the party, in view of peril of mob that was hanging over him, seems to have been the inducement, or at least, so far as the evidence shows, was the inducement, for him to make the admission. The truth of the matter, if admitted, would be altogether left to the jury, and I am inclined to think, from the view of the authorities laid down by our supreme court, that I will exclude it. Here was a man put into a cell for the purpose of obtaining from him a confession by persuasion. There is no evidence here that there was any authority given him to promise him anything, but at the same time he did volunteer the information there to him that he was in danger, and that, if he would make a statement, he would protect him, and that the sheriff would. It must be absolutely voluntary. That seems to be the rule laid down by the authorities. If the testimony had rested upon the officers,––if the testimony rested upon them alone,––I would, unquestionably, have admitted it. You are bound to recognize this fact,––that the person placed there by the officer was acting by his authority to that extent. If the representations made to him were confined simply to the question where this gun had disappeared to, then I would have admitted it. But he has gone beyond that. He said that the admission or confession, or whatever it was that he got, was upon the promise that he would grant him immunity from impending mob violence.” This language of the court is here assigned as prejudicial error by Taylor. The plaintiff in error cannot be heard now to allege this, as he made no objection and noted no exception to the language of the court at the time.

The theory of the state at the trial was that Taylor shot Woods with a double–barreled shotgun, procured from one Curtis for the purpose; that Woods' wife, Amanda, and Curtis were unduly intimate; that they had procured Taylor to commit the murder. The evidence shows that Curtis had a double–barreled shotgun; that it was delivered to Taylor on April 19th, on an order from Curtis; that Taylor borrowed gunpowder and gun caps, and loaded the gun with leaden slugs, which he had been seen, previously, preparing from pistol cartridges. On the night and at the time of the homicide, Woods' wife and two elder daughters were away from home. During the evening, Taylor came into the house, bringing a bottle of whisky, and requested Woods to drink. Soon after Taylor left, Woods retired, leaving a lamp burning in his bedroom, and soon afterwards the shot was fired that killed Woods in his bed. The lead slugs found in the body and bed of the murdered man were very similar to the ones Taylor had been seen loading the shotgun with. The gun was not found.

After the evidence of the above facts had gone to the jury, and after the court had excluded the state's offered evidence of the confession made by Taylor to the sheriff, the state recalled the sheriff, and examined him as follows: “Question. I believe you said you saw the defendant on the night of the murder of Robert Woods? Answer. I did. Q. Where did you first see him? A. I saw him at his–– Where he was living. Q. Did you have any conversation with him about the gun that night? A. I did. Q. What was it? A. I asked him if he had the gun. Q. What did he say? A. He gave me the answer–– He said he didn't have. Q. He said he didn't have? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you make any effort to find the gun? A. I did. Q. Supposed to have been used on this occasion? A. I did. I did make an effort. Q. What effort did you make, and where did you get the information that induced you to make that effort? A. I took Taylor with me to look for the gun. Q. Where did you go? A. I went down on the bottom near where this murder had been committed. Q. Where did you search? A. I searched the pond of water. Q. Who made the search? A. The defendant made most of the search. Q. How did you come to go there? A. The defendant told me he thought he could–– Q. How did the defendant come to go with you,––voluntarily or otherwise? A. Voluntarily. Q. Now, state what he said about it on this occasion? A. He told me he thought he could find the gun, if I would take him to where he would search for it. Q. Where did he say he last saw the gun on this occasion? A. He told me he delivered the gun to Mr. Curtis, at Curtis' gate. Q. When? A. The evening of the murder; the night of the murder. Q. Before or after? A. After. Q. Was there anything said at that time as to where he last saw the gun? And, if so, state what it was. A. He told me he delivered the gun to Curtis, at Curtis' gate, the night of the 22d. Q. Where did he last see it? ...