White v. State

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Citation91 So. 903,129 Miss. 182
Decision Date05 June 1922
Docket Number22114
PartiesWHITE v. STATE

March 1922

1. CRIMINAL LAW. Confessions induced by fear involuntary.

Confessions induced by fear, though not aroused by spoken threats, are nevertheless involuntary, because the fear which takes away the freedom may arise solely from the conditions and circumstances surrounding the confessor.

2. CRIMINAL LAW. Confessions obtained by administering the "water cure" held not voluntary.

Where an ignorant negro boy was arrested and brought to the scene of a horrible murder, and after he was released fell into the hands of infuriated planters and plantation managers, who took him into the store building where the bloody corpse lay and with a crowd of armed white men assembled to obtain a confession, he confessed to one of them, and then his hands were tied behind him, he was laid on the floor, and a white man stood on his body and they administered to him the "water cure," which consisted in pouring water into his nose, confessions thus obtained were not free and voluntary.

3. CRIMINAL LAW. Exclusion of evidence showing that the same influence which rendered former confessions involuntary obtained in the confession introduced held error.

Where confessions were obtained at the scene of the murder by threats, duress, and physical violence, it was error to refuse to allow defendant's counsel to introduce testimony showing a connection between such involuntary confessions, and another confession to some of the same parties subsequently made at the jail to show that the same influence obtained in the later confession rendering it involuntary.

HON. S F. DAVIS, Judge.

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

Gerrard White was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Judgment reversed and case remanded.

Neil & Clark, for appellant.

A confession to be admissible in evidence must be free, voluntary and made without hope of reward or fear of punishment. Simons v. State, 37 Miss. 288.

In the case of Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 208, this court said: "It is necessary to look to all surroundings of the person making a confession in order to determine whether it is rendered inadmissible because it resulted from fear or threat or undue influence of a person, even though one not in authority, operating upon the mind of the person confessing. Even the acts of third persons may amount to a threat excluding confessions, though no objectionable words are spoken." Citing Bishop's new Criminal Procedure, secs. 1237-38; Ammons v. State (sweat box case), 80 Miss. 592.

In the instant case, appellant, a negro, friendless and alone charged with the murder of a white man which is the gravest offense known to the law in this state, was in the hands of white men who had carried him behind closed guarded doors for one purpose, and one purpose only, that of securing a confession. Can this court say that a confession so obtained was from the spontaneous operation of appellant's own mind? Was it free from extraneous cause and influence? Was it free of constraint? Was this appellant given that free and impartial trial guaranteed to him by the laws of the State--free from the admissions and influence of incompetent testimony? We think not.

We think the case of Cady v. State, 44 Miss. 332, is not pertinent for the reason that the facts in that case are not similar to the instant case. Where a confession is made under the influence of threats such influence is presumed to continue until removed by evidence, and a subsequent confession will not be received unless the influence Of the first confession is shown to have been totally done away with. Reason v. State, 94 Miss. 292, citing Banks v. State, 47 So. 437; Durham v. State, 47 So. 545.

The court will bear in mind throughout the examination of the record in this case, that the witnesses Robertson and Gilbert, of all the numberless witnesses who were present in the store when the first confession was made who had the face, the nerve and the hardihood to take the stand and testify as to confessions made by this appellant, they were the witnesses who, according to Robertson's own statement, got the second voluntary confession from appellant at the jail in Greenville; they are the witnesses, who, as shown by the record, went to Clarksdale, and in the presence of seven other men, got a confession from Buck Kenard implicating this appellant in the murder of Gross. The manner of obtaining this confession and the number of men who obtained it are shown in Kenard's testimony.

We respectfully submit that, under the law and facts in this case, it should be reversed and remanded.

H. Cassedy Holden, special assistant attorney-general, for the state.

The first confession made in the store, as to how the killing occurred, was free and voluntary, though the subsequent confession made in the store was made under compulsion. There was nothing involuntary in the first confession made in the store, unless it be that the mere presence of the plantation owners and managers frightened the defendant to such an extent that his statement was not made with entire freedom. But the mere presence of a person or group of persons, it is submitted, is not sufficient to render the confession inadmissible. Something must actually be done to extort the confession. The intimidation must be active. A mere passive or potential intimidation is not sufficient.

However, that may be, the confession made in the jail at Greenville was wholly admissible. The appellant contends that, since the two confessions made in the store were involuntary, the subsequent confession in the jail was also involuntary and inadmissible because the statement made in the jail was substantially the same as the statements made in the store. It is true that where a confession is made under the influence of threats or fear, a subsequent confession will not be admissible in evidence until such influence is shown to have been entirely removed. Whitley v. State, 78 Miss. 255, 28 So. 852, 53 L. R. A. 402n; Mackmasters v. State, 82 Miss. 459, 34 So. 156; Reason v. State, 94 Miss. 290, 48 So. 820.

But in the instant case, if there were any threats made or fear induced in the store, these influences were entirely absent when the confession was made in the jail. There the defendant was under the protection of the officers of the law. He was inside of his cell, behind barred doors, safe from the reach of those who might try to do him harm. He spoke through the door of his cell, in conversation with Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Robertson and others, and freely told them all about the killing.

As to the first confession made by the defendant in the store, the case of Cady v. State, 44 Miss. 332, is pertinent. In the Cady case the confession was made by the accused while his hands were tied and in the immediate presence of the body of the deceased, and surrounded by over one hundred men. These men were highly excited and insisted that the accused should be hung, but no threats or promises were made to induce the confession. The court held that the confession there made was properly admitted.

The rule concerning confessions is fully announced in Johnson v. State. 107 Miss. 196, 65 So. 218, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1183. It is there held by this court that a confession offered in evidence should not be admitted, if there is any reasonable doubt as to whether it was freely and voluntarily made, and if, after its admission, the testimony creates such a doubt, it should be excluded. It is further held in that case that to determine whether a confession is inadmissible because resulting from fear, threat, or undue influence, it is necessary to look to all the surroundings of the person making the confession, and the acts of third persons may amount to a threat, although no objectionable words are spoken.

Of course, the truthfulness of the confessions of the defendant have no bearing upon their admissibility but it is exceedingly interesting to note that they are most probably free from falsehood. At least, the circumstantial evidence of the case most powerfully impels one to conclude that the defendant's confessions contain far more truth than the inconsistent and contradictory statements of Kenard, the blacksmith co-defendant of Gerrard White.

The judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.

OPINION

HOLDEN, J.

The appellant, Gerrard White, was convicted of the murder of T H....

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Owen v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • December 14, 1936
    ...... explanation and examination of jurors in which they were. required to testify that they would give a negro the same. fair, just, and impartial consideration that would he. accorded any other person. . . One of. the definitions of a "white man" is. used. colloquially, a trustworthy, fair-dealing person. . . 2. CRIMINAL LAW. . . Trial. court's statement regarding proceeding at trial would be. accepted as true where not disputed. . . 3. Jury. . . Jurors'. relationship to two ......
  • Keeton v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 6, 1936
    ...133 Miss. 684, 98 So. 150; Fisher v. State, 145 Miss. 116, 110 So. 361; Clash v. State, 146 Miss. 811, 112 So. 370; White v. State, 129 Miss. 182, 91 So. 903, 24 A. R. 699; Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 196, 65 So. 218, 219, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1183, where it is said: A voluntary confession i......
  • Fisher v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 23, 1928
    ......We say. that this illiterate and ignorant negro with the mentality of. a child was incapable of a free and voluntary confession to. anyone, after the infliction of the blows by the Winchester. rifle on the night of his arrest. See Fisher v. State, 145 Miss. 166; White v. State, 129 Miss. 182, 91 So. 903; Matthews v. State, 102 Miss. 549,. 59 So. 842; Jones v. State, 133 Miss. 684, 98 So. 150; Banks v. State, 93 Miss. 700, 47 So. 437;. Hampson v. State, 88 Miss. 257, 40 So. 445;. Hathorn v. State, 138 Miss. 11, 102 So. 771;. Whip v. State, 109 ......
  • Warren v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 18, 1935
    ...... . . Confessions. of crime are inadmissible in evidence if they were induced by. promises to intercede with the judge for a light sentence and. assurances to prisoner that it would be better for him to. confess. . . Johnson. v. State, 89 Miss. 773, 42 So. 606; White v. State,. 129 Miss. 182, 91 So. 903; Simmons v. State, 37. Miss. 288; Hathorn v. State, 138 Miss. 11, 102 So. 771; Fletcher v. State, 131 So. 251; Stepney v. City. of Columbia, 127 So. 687, 157 Miss. 193. . . Where. the confession is offered the burden is on the state to show. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT