Whitley v. State
| Citation | 78 Miss. 255,28 So. 852 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Decision Date | 12 November 1900 |
| Parties | JOHN WHITLEY v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
October 1900
FROM the circuit court of DeSoto county HON. Z. M. STEPHENS Judge.
Whitley the appellant, was indicted and convicted of murder in the court below, and appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
Farley & Lauderdale, for appellant.
The first confession should not have been admitted in evidence, because it was extorted by threats. Its admission was an outrage on defendant, which was not relieved of its consequences by the court subsequently excluding it from consideration by the jury.
The second confession was made under the influence of the threats by which the first one was extorted. The state did not show, or even offer or attempt to show, that the influence was removed. Such an influence is presumed to continue, especially where the second confession is made to or in the presence of the parties who extorted the first confession. Peter v. State, 4 Sined. & M., 31.
Monroe McClurg, attorney-general, for the appellant.
The following authorities maintain the admissibility of the statement by defendant about the sack and the money: 1 Wharton on Crim. Ev., 695; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., 332; Belote v. State, 36 Miss. 96; 6 Am. & Eng. Enc. L. (2d ed.), 551. The court below excluded the first confession, and the second one was not extorted.
John Whitley was sentenced to be hanged by the circuit court of DeSoto county, and he appeals from the judgment of the court. Meriwether and Gore, the latter being a deputy sheriff, rescued the defendant from the hands of a mob, and held him in custody for the murder of Brice Martin. On the day of the arrest, upon the threat of Meriwether and Gore to deliver him back to the mob unless he should confess to the killing of Martin, and upon their assurance that the mob would kill him if delivered to them, the defendant made a circumstantial statement of the killing of the deceased without any provocation, and of getting from Martin's person a sack containing $ 6.50 or $ 7.50, and of hiding the money at a certain place designated by him and known to them, where, the next day, the sack and money were found. These confessions were admitted by the court as being freely and voluntarily given, and proof, also, was made as to the finding of the sack and money where the prisoner stated them to be, upon which much value seems to be set by the prosecution. On the next day after the making of the first confession, while going out to get the money and sack hidden by the defendant, being in charge of Sheriff Williamson and of Deputy Sheriff Gore and Meriwether, to which two last named persons the first confession had been made, the defendant, at the instance of Gore, made a second confession, both to Gore and to Williamson, of the killing of Martin, without any cause, except that Martin "fussed" at him for spitting upon him. Gore says that he assured Whitley that he was safe from the mob, and insisted that he should then tell the truth of the matter to him and to the sheriff; but it is to be noted that the parties then were in search of evidence to corroborate and fortify the vicious confession of the day before. There was other evidence in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owen v. State
...... State, 143 Miss. 757; Ammons v. State, 80 Miss. 592; Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 196; Jones v. State, 133 Miss. 684; Banks v. State, 93 Miss. 700; 1 Greenl. Evidence 221; Peter v. State, 4 Sm. &. M. 31; Van Buren v. State, 24 Miss. 516;. Simon v. State, 37 Miss. 288; Whitley v. State, 78 Miss. 255; 1 Wigmore on Evidence, 986;. State v. Smith, 72 Miss. 420; Harvey v. State, 20 So. 837; Fisher v. State, 110 So. 361, 145 Miss. 116; McMaster v. State, 82 Miss. 459;. Boudreaux v. State, 168 So. 621; 16 C. J. 730;. Keeton v. State, 167 So. 68; White v. ......
-
Pullen v. State
......757, 109 So. 697; Ellis v. State, . 65 Miss. 44, 3 So. 188; Williams v. State, 72 Miss. 117, 16 So. 296; State v. Smith, 72 Miss. 420, 18. So. 482; Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 196, 65 So. 218; Ammons v. State, 80 Miss. 592, 32 So. 9, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 768; Whitley v. State, 78 Miss. 255,. 28 So. 852; Fisher v. State, 145 Miss. 116, 110 So. 361; Hampton case, 88 Miss. 257, 40 So. 445. . . There. was an obstinate denial of any connection with the crime on. the part of defendant always although the persistent demands. of the officers ......
-
Keeton v. State
...on Criminal Evidence (2 Ed.), sec. 126; People v. McMahou, 15 N.Y. 384; Whip v. State, 143 Miss. 757, 109 So. 697; Whitley v. State, 78 Miss. 255, 28 So. 852, 53 L. R. A. 402; Durham v. State, 47 So. 545; Reason v. State, 94 Miss. 290, 48 So. 820; Fisher v. State, 145 Miss. 116, 110 So, 361......
-
Brown v. State
...Mathews v. State, 59 So. 842; Banks v. State, 47 So. 437; State v. Smith, 18 So. 482; White v. State, 91 So. 150; Sweat Box case, 32 So. 9; 28 So. 852; Stubbs State, 114 So. 827; Lofton v. State, 116 So. 435; Fisher v. State, 110 So. 361; Johnson v. State, 140 So. 683; Hathorn v. State, 102......