Tyler v. State

• Decision Date: 08 December 1930
• Docket Number: 29119
• Citation: 159 Miss. 223,131 So. 417
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: TYLER v. STATE

131 So. 417

159 Miss. 223

TYLER v. STATE

No. 29119

Supreme Court of Mississippi

December 8, 1930

Division A

1. CRIMINAL LAW.

Whether confession was free and voluntary was question for court where evidence was conflicting.

2. CRIMINAL LAW.

In prosecution for murder, evidence on preliminary examination on admissibility of alleged confession held to establish confession was free and voluntary.

3. CRIMINAL LAW.

Extrajudicial confessions, whether in writing or oral, if freely and voluntarily made, are admissible in evidence.

4. CRIMINAL LAW.

Oral testimony showing substance of extrajudicial confessions as well as signed written confession is admissible as primary evidence; it not being secondary evidence.

HON. S F. DAVIS, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Washington county, HON. S. F. DAVIS Judge.

Robert Tyler was convicted for murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

E. H. Brandon, of Greenville, for appellant.

A careful reading and consideration of the record in this case will reveal to the discriminating mind, that the predominant factor contributing to the conviction of the appellant is the evidence relative to his confession; that had the evidence of confession been excluded from the jury entirely it is highly improbable that the jury would have convicted the appellant on the strength of the evidence of Charity Lee, the wife of the deceased, King Lee, because it is unconvincing, inaccurate, improbable, and prejudiced.

Further, a careful examination of the record reveals to the mind that there were conditions and circumstances existing at the time of and prior to the confession of appellant, which tend to convince one that the mind of the appellant was by the use of external causes, gradually, but nevertheless surely brought into a state of apprehension and fear, which finally culminated in the written confession; and that these influences were external, there is no doubt.

If there is a principle which may be regarded as settled, in the criminal jurisprudence of this country, it is, that the accused has the right, under any and all circumstances, to maintain his silence in regard to the commission of the crime alleged against him. It was not only the right of the party accused, to preserve his entire silence in regard to the killing, but to resist force by force, to compel him to act otherwise, if it had been in his power to employ such force.

Jordan v. State, 32 Miss. 382.

If a confession is secured, before it is admissible it must be shown to be free and voluntary.

Whip v. State, 143 Miss. 757, 109 So. 697; Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 196, 65 So. 218; State v. Clifford, 53 N.W. 299, 300, 41 A. S. R. 518; Words & Phrases, Vol. 8, page 7344; Simon v. State, 37 Miss. 288; Ammons v. State, 80 Miss. 592.

The state has not met the requirements of a free and voluntary confession.

The court erred in permitting, either through inadvertance, or otherwise, the written and signed confession of the appellant to go to the jury as "Exhibit '1'" to the cross-examination of Robert Tyler.

Wright v. State, 50 Miss. 332.

Edwin R. Holmes, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

The confession was voluntary.

Appellant admitted that when he made the statement to the county attorney nobody threatened him, and nobody said anything to him except Mr. Sterling, and Mr. Sterling said that nobody was going to hurt him. Mr. Humphreys told him that any statement would be used against him, and that if he made any statement, he wanted him to understand that no one was threatening to do him any harm, if he did not make it, nor was anyone offering him any reward if he made it.

The trial judge is the trier of fact whose decision will govern unless the evidence shows to the Supreme Court's satisfaction that the confession was not free and voluntary.

Stubbs v. State, 148 Miss. 764; Lofton v. State, 150 Miss. 228.

Whether or not a confession was made without the influence of hope or fear being exerted on the accused by any other person is a preliminary question for the court to pass upon, and the court properly conducted a preliminary examination to determine the competency of the confessions.

Fisher v. State, 150 Miss. 206; Donahue v. State, 142 Miss. 20; Brown v. State, 142 Miss. 335; Lee v. State, 137 Miss. 329.

Additional evidence submitted on the trial does not show that confession was not freely and voluntarily made.

The rule of evidence commonly known as the best evidence rule, which from early times has been repeatedly enunciated by the courts is that the highest degree of proof of which the case from its nature is susceptible must, if accessible be produced.

22 C. J., 974.

But the rule has limitations, 22 C. J., p. 975.

The best evidence rule does not demand that the strongest possible evidence of the matter in dispute shall be given, nor that all evidence existing in the case shall be produced, but requires simply that no evidence shall be given from which, considering its own character and the nature of the transaction, an inference may arise that there is obtainable by the party other evidence more direct and conclusive and more nearly original in its source.

Where there is no substitution of secondary for primary or original evidence, the rule is not violated.

22 C. J. 976, 977.

It cannot be laid down as a universal rule that where written evidence of a fact exists all parol evidence of the same fact must be excluded.

22 C. J. 982-3; 16 C. J. 732.

OPINION

McGowen, J.

Robert Tyler, the appellant, was indicted, together with three others, for murder, in the killing of one King Lee. Upon motion he was granted a severance. On his separate trial, upon a verdict of guilty as charged, the court sentenced him to be hanged. From this conviction and sentence, appellant prosecutes this appeal.

The conviction rests upon the testimony of Charity Lee, the wife of King Lee, the deceased, and the confession of the accused, or appellant. The deceased was an aged negro who had lived with his wife, Charity Lee, for fifty years, and at the time of his murder was living near James Crossing in Washington county. According to Charity Lee's evidence, she and her husband were sitting by their fireside when five negro boys came to their door and knocked, and were let into their room by the deceased, King Lee. It was a cold night and King Lee invited them to warm themselves by the fire and told them that they could split some wood which he had to replenish the fire, holding a lamp for them to do so. After they had sat around the fire for some time, the old man told his wife to prepare a bed for the boys so they could spend the night if they wanted to. They did not know the boys. While sitting around the fireside, the old woman became worried about some money, about one thousand dollars, proceeds of life insurance collected on the death of the daughter of the old people, which she had hidden in the house. Being worried about the money, she went into an adjoining room where it was concealed, got it, came back into the room where the boys were, and hid it under her on the cot on which she was sitting. Two of the boys went into the front room as if to go to bed, and while there blew out the light and searched her trunk. About that time, Charity observed the other three negroes had jumped upon her husband, who was lying on the bed, and had put a pillow and quilt on top of him and turned him over on the mattress and were smothering him to death. She said that they mashed him until they killed him. As three of the boys were smothering her husband, the other two grabbed Charity and tied her feet together and blindfolded her, saying "God damn you, give me that money," and, pointing a pistol at her, said, "You got to give it up, if you don't, I am going to kill you." She said, "Boys don't kill my husband, you can have the money," and turned the money over to them. She recognized and identified the appellant as one of the two robbers who had tied her feet together and blindfolded her. He was not, however, one of the three who participated in the actual deed of smothering her husband to death. Neither of them had had any difficulty with the boys previous to the commission of the crime, nor had they ever seen the boys before. After killing the old man and taking the money from his wife, Charity, as detailed above, the boys left.

The testimony showed that a watch, a razor, and a bracelet were found in the possession of the appellant at the time of his arrest, the watch and razor being identified by Charity as belonging to her husband, the bracelet as having belonged to her daughter, all of which was taken from her house on the night of the murder. The articles were further identified by other witnesses. It was shown also that about twenty dollars in money was found on the person of the appellant when he was arrested.

In the absence of the jury, the court conducted a preliminary examination as to whether a proposed confession made by the appellant was free and voluntary. The testimony of the appellant was to the effect that he had made the confession at a time when he was threatened and under fear. In this he was contradicted by the sheriff and other witnesses.

The appellant testified that Taggert, a deputy sheriff, struck him, and threatened him at the time he went into the cell of the jail. Mr. Taggert stated that before placing the appellant in the cell he searched him, telling the accused at that time to put up his hands, that he wanted to find some of those "twenties" he was flashing around, that upon putting his hands in the trousers of the accused, about where the roll of money would be found, his hand was grabbed by the accused, and thereupon he slapped him telling him to...