Walker v. State
Decision Date | 05 December 1921 |
Docket Number | 21924 |
Citation | 89 So. 921,127 Miss. 246 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | WALKER v. STATE |
CRIMINAL LAW. Confessions may be considered to establish corpus delicti.
On the trial of a criminal case, a confession by the accused may be considered together with other evidence to establish the corpus delicti, provided such other evidence is of such character as will satisfy the mind that it is a real and not an imaginary crime which the accused has confessed.
APPEAL from circuit court of Simpson county, HON. W. H. HUGHES Judge.
Herschel Walker was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Reversed, and defendant discharged.
Judgment reversed and appellant discharged.
J. P Edwards and A. W. McRaney, for appellant.
We submit that no one can be convicted of crime on the uncorroborated confessions of himself alone, and in support of this we beg leave to cite the following authority Jinkins v. State, 54 So. 158; Pitts v. State, 43 Miss. 472; Stanley v. State, 34 So. 360; Bolden v. State, 54 So. 241.
In each and all of the authorities above cited this court has held that the corpus delicti cannot be proven by the confessions of the accused person. It is perfectly manifest that this conviction was for the making of the whisky a few days before Christmas, and as to this act of making whiskey there is no evidence in the record except the bare confession of the appellant.
D. C. Enochs, assistant attorney-general, for the state.
Coming now to the other contention of appellant that this cause should be reversed because the state failed to show that the crime of making and distilling intoxicating liquors had been committed, wherefore the confession of the appellant was inadmissible as evidence of his guilt, concede that it is familiar learning that the prosecution has the burden of proving that a crime has been committed before the jury proceeded to inquire as to who committed it. 16 C. J. 529. This proof, that a crime has been committed, is what is known in law as the corpus delicti. And this court has a great many times held that a confession of guilt by the accused is inadmissible in evidence against him without proof of the corpus delicti. In other words, no one can be convicted of crime on his confession alone. But proof of the corpus delicti that a crime has been committed . . . must be made by evidence independent of the conviction and beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, coming to the case at bar, the evidence shows that appellant had in his possession everything necessary for the making and distilling of intoxicating liquor, except the trough. It is true, the witnesses for the state said the barrel of mash was level full, which would indicate that none of the mash had as yet been used. The witnesses for the state also testified that the lard can was bright and new and had never been used for the making or distilling of intoxicating liquor. And the evidence in reference to the bucket of mud does not show that any of the mud in the bucket had as yet been used for any purpose. But the worm or coil that was found in the possession of appellant behind his wardrobe, the evidence shows, had been used and had the smell of moonshine whiskey. This evidence of the prior use and smell of the worm or coil is undisputed. If the fact that a man is found possessed of the implements and mash necessary for the making of intoxicating liquor, and the fact that one of the implements or parts of the still has been previously used to make intoxicating liquors, is not sufficient proof for a jury to say that intoxicating liquor had been made or distilled, then, this conviction cannot stand.
I am familiar with the case of Stanberry v. State, 53 So 783, which was a case where the appellant had been convicted of having intoxicating liquors in his possession...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Keeton v. State
...slighter than that ordinarily essential." This rule has been followed a in Nichols v. State, 165 Miss. 114, 145 So. 903; Walker v. State, 127 Miss. 246, 89 So. 921; Patterson v. State, 127 Miss. 256, 90 So. Garner v. State, 132 Miss. 815, 96 So. 743; Crabb v. State, 152 Miss. 602, 120 So. 5......
-
Perkins v. State
... ... People v. Wilson, 3 Park. Cr. Rep. 199; State v ... Vincent, 24 Iowa 570; Holland v. Com., 26 Ky ... L. Rep. 789, 82 S.W. 598; State v. Williams, 36 ... Wash. 143, 78 P. 780; Heard v. State, 59 Miss. 545; ... Dunmore v. State, 86 Miss. 788; Carruthers v ... State, 121 Miss. 762; Walker v. State, 127 ... Miss. 246; Heard v. State, 59 Miss. 545; 2 Wharton ... Cr. Ev. (10 Ed.) 1316; Patterson v. State, 127 Miss ... 256; Garner v. State, 132 Miss. 815; Sykes v ... State, 128 So. 753; Donahue v. State, 142 Miss. 20 ... The ... confession of the appellant was properly ... ...
-
Gunter v. State
...State, 165 Miss. 114, 145 So. 903; Garner v. State, 132 Miss. 815, 96 So. 743; Patterson v. State, 127 Miss. 256, 90 So. 2; Walker v. State, 127 Miss. 246, 89 So. 921. the corpus delicti cannot be proved alone by the defendant's confession, nevertheless his criminal agency may be shown by h......
-
Brooks v. State
... ... conviction for manslaughter could occur. Thus, it is not ... necessary to establish that a murder has been committed ... before a confession may be introduced, but it is only ... necessary to show that a real and not an imaginary crime has ... been committed ... Walker ... v. State, 127 Miss. 246, 89 So. 921; Patterson v ... State, 127 Miss. 256, 90 So. 2; Garner v ... State, 132 Miss. 815, 96 So. 743; Perkins v ... State, 160 Miss. 720, 135 So. 757 ... [173 So. 410] ... [178 ... Miss. 580] Smith, C. J ... The ... ...