Valentine v. State
| Decision Date | 23 November 1886 |
| Parties | VALENTINE v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
October Term, 1886.
2. Where a bill of exceptions assigns error on the overruling of a motion for a new trial on the grounds therein set forth such grounds should be complete in themselves. Where grounds of a motion for a new trial allege error, in that the court admitted testimony of certain named witnesses as to the confessions of the defendant, made in the presence of such witnesses, " as disclosed in the brief of evidence in the record of this case, to which leave of reference is prayed, on the ground that said alleged confession was not freely and voluntarily made, as appears by the testimony of said (witnesses) touching said alleged confession," but did not set out the testimony excepted to, or what transpired before the court as to its admission, the assignment of error is incomplete and not properly before this court.
( a. ) What transpired before the court, on the question of admitting confessions in the absence of the jury formed no part of the brief of evidence admitted before the jury, and was not, therefore, properly a part of the record.
3. If the assignment of error were sufficient, the admission of the evidence would not require a new trial. Although something was said to the defendant at one time, to the effect that he had been a good worker and that his employer wished to help him, and afterwards that it might be better for him to tell his employer about it, yet he was left perfectly free from either hope or fear in saying what he did; and although afterwards something was said, to the effect that he had better tell the truth in Augusta, where he then was, as witnesses might be brought from Virginia to tell what he had said there, but that if he said anything to tell the truth anyway,— these facts did not require the exclusion of his statements from evidence.
( a. ) Moreover, other inconsistent confessions were made, convicting him of the murder, but wholly unlike any he had previously made, and which could not have at all resulted from those above considered.
4. The fact that, in charging the jury as to their right to recommend confinement in the penitentiary for life in case of a conviction for murder, the court said, " Then, if you convict him, it is for you to say whether the facts of the case, whether all the circumstances, warrant you in recommending him to the mercy of the court," will not require a new trial. Such language did not circumscribe or restrict the jury in respect to the exercise of their right of recommendation.
( a. ) This case differs from those of Hill vs State, 72 Ga. 131, and Johnson vs. State, 58 Id. 491.
5. Where the jury, after having been out several hours, returned into court and stated that their failure to agree arose out of the question of recommendation, and that they desired to know whether, in the event they failed to recommend to mercy the judge had any discretion in fixing the punishment, there was no error on the part of the judge in replying,
Criminal Law. Evidence. Practice in Supreme Court. Charge of Court. Before Judge RONEY. Richmond Superior Court. April Term, 1886.
Preston Valentine was indicted for the murder of William Vail, and on his trial was found guilty. The facts are sufficiently stated in the decision, and it is necessary to add only that the testimony of the two witnesses detailing the confessions, which were objected to but admitted in evidence, was as follows:
L. G. Byers, sworn for the State. — I reside in Alleghany, Virginia, and am sheriff of that county. I recognize the defendant, and first saw him last January, at Lowmore, Alleghany county, Virginia. He was at work at Lowmore Junction, at the coke oven. I was present last month at the time of his arrest for this crime. The arrest was made at Lowmore by Mr. Clark and myself. Mr. Clark is the commissioner of revenue of that county. We arrested him near his boarding-house at the junction, just off from the coke ovens a few hundred yards. We carried him over to the depot into the office of Mr. Williams, the depot agent. Mr. Williams was present, Mr. Purcell, the operator, and several others. Defendant was at the office of the depot when he made certain statements to me and other parties present. The name of the superintendent of the mines was A. Skelding. Mr. Skelding came into the office just about the time we took Valentine in there. He made a statement or confession in my presence, and in the presence of those gentlemen. (The jury were retired at this point beyond the hearing of the testimony.) No threat was made or reward offered. Mr. Skelding remarked to him, Tom said, At that point, Mr. Purcell spoke up and said, " Wasn't it a pick?" He said, " No, it was an ax." He then said that one of the men poured kerosene oil on Mr. Vail and set it on fire, and broke the drawer open and took a lot of nickels, and told him to go out and get them changed for other money. He stated that it was $27 or $37; I forget which. All that was said before Mr. Purcell or anybody else had said a word to him in reference to the matter. Mr. Purcell had had no interview with him. Neither Mr. Skelding nor any one else had offered him any reward or made any promise or threat to him at the time.
Preliminary cross-examination. — I arrested Preston Valentine by request of Mr. Purcell. When I reached Lowmore, I and Mr. Clark went to the office of the company and learned of Mr. Collier, the clerk of the Lowmore Iron Company, that Thomas Jones was still with the company— that he had been on duty that morning. We then started to the coke oven. Mr. Clark and Collier went with us. Mr. Purcell was then in the depot. When we got to the coke oven, we asked the boss if Thomas Jones was there. He told us no, that he was round to the boarding-house. We started round and met Thomas Jones on the way and arrested him. When we had walked fifty yards, he said, " What's the matter, boss; what have I done?" Mr. Clark said, " There is a gentleman at the depot who wants to see you." When we reached the depot, there were present, besides myself, Mr. Williams, Purcell, Clark, Collier, the operator and Mr. Skelding. Mr. Skelding asked Tom how he got into this trouble. His reply was, " Boss, I'll tell you all about it." He seemed to recognize Captain Purcell, and said good morning. Mr. Skelding remarked to Tom that he had been a good hand; asked him how he had got into this trouble; and said if there is anything that I can do for you, I will do it. Mr. Purcell did pawn his watch with me. He told me he would give me fifty dollars to help him hunt this man up. He told me he didn't have the money. He was a stranger to me, and he just handed me his watch— pawned it with me.
Counsel of defendant objected to the testimony of the witness, on the ground that the confessions were not freely and voluntarily made without hope or fear to induce them. The court overruled the objections, and decided that the testimony as to the confessions might go to the jury.
The jury having returned to the box, the testimony of witness proceeded in the hearing of the jury, witness stating substantially what he had already detailed in the presence of the court, with these additional facts:
Mr. Purcell held no conversation with the prisoner that was not in my presence up to the time of the confession. His statement to Mr. Skelding, both as to the amount and character of the money stolen, and as to the crime and details of it, was made before I had communicated to him any of the facts.
Cross-examined. — The substance of the language used by Mr. Skelding was about this: or, " if there is anything I can do for you, I will do it," and then what was said by defendant followed. I am here in this case because I was telegraphed for. I have received no subpœ na. Mr. Purcell telegraphed me that the solicitor-general wanted me, and I voluntarily came on that telegram. I am not at all interested in the matter pecuniarily. Mr. Purcell did offer me fifty dollars to assist in the arresting of this man. That was of no interest in this case. Purcell has not given me the money yet. He said he didn't have it. I still hold the watch as collateral. I paid my own way here, but expect the State to replace it. I received a telegram from the solicitor to that effect.
E. B. Hook, sworn for the State. — Since the arrest of the prisoner and since he has been in jail, I had an interview with him.
Counsel for defendant here made the same objection to the testimony of the witness, as to the confessions made by defendant, as had previously been made in the case of the preceding witness, to-wit: That if the first confession was not admissible because not freely and voluntarily made, any subsequent confession of...
To continue reading
Request your trial