Williams v. State
Decision Date | 02 August 1940 |
Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Ivory Lee Williams was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Alachua County; H L. Sebring, judge.
Parks M. Carmichael, of Gainesville, for appellant.
George Couper Gibbs, Atty. Gen., and William Fisher, Jr., Asst Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Ivory Lee Williams, on October 20, 1939, was indicted by a grand jury of Alachua County, Florida, for the crime of murder in the first degree. The crime, as set out in the indictment, was alleged to have been committed on the 14th day of September, 1939. The defendant was arraigned entered a plea of not guilty, placed on trial and was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree, without recommendation to mercy. He was sentenced to death by electrocution and from the said judgment has perfected an appeal to this Court.
The appellant, hereinafter called the defendant, was taken into custody by the Sheriff of Alachua County, Florida, on September 15, 1939, and the record shows that he was placed in the county jail of Alachua County and shortly thereafter signed a written confession. A second written confession was signed by the defendant in the Putnam County jail, and these two confessions were admitted into evidence during the progress of the trial of the cause.
It is conceded that these written confessions refer to the same crime, but the Putnam County confession, identified as State's Exhibit No. 3, contains all the facts appearing in the confession made in the Alachua County jail, identified as State's Exhibit No. 2, with additional admissions. Proper objections were seasonably made to the admission into evidence of each of the confession Nos. 2 and 3 by counsel for the defendant during the progress of the trial in the lower court and the same were overruled and denied, and the rulings thereon are assigned as error in this Court. The principle of law involved can be fully determined by this Court in reviewing the ruling of the trial court in admitting into evidence the written confession of the defendant made in the Putnam County jail and identified in the record as Confession No. 2 and State's Exhibit No. 3 which is, viz.:
The extrajudicial confession was objected to first on the ground that the same was not voluntarily made by the defendant and at the time thereof he was not advised at to his constitutional rights; and that the defendant was a young, inexperienced darkey and threats or coercion were resorted to in obtaining the confession. The record shows that the trial court, when the objections were made, excused the jury and in its absence heard testimony on the question of whether or not the confession was obtained in a constitutional manner. We have carefully reviewed the testimony appearing in the record on which the trial court based its ruling to the effect that the confession was freely and voluntarily made. There was no evidence offered by the State or defendant to show that the confession was involuntarily made. The cases cited by counsel for defendant on the point in issue have been examined.
The fact that the defendant was taken into custody on suspicion and questioned by the Sheriff of Alachua County, and his deputies or assistants, is not a sufficient legal cause to exclude either of the written confession. If the confession emanates freely and voluntarily and is made without fear, hope of reward and promise of escaping punishment, or some other illegal influence, the same is properly admitted. See Clay v. State, Fla., 196 So. 462; Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203; Cawthon v. State, 118 Fla. 394, 159 So. 366; Dabney v. State, 119 Fla. 341, 161 So. 380; Harrison v. State, 110 Fla. 420, 148 So. 882; Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479; Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. 851; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 So. 176; Sims v. State, 59 Fla. 38, 52 So. 198; Williams v. State, 48 Fla. 65, 37 So. 521; Moore v. State, 68 Fla. 91, 66 So. 431; McDonald v. State, 70 Fla. 250, 70 So. 24; Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 317, 105 So. 843; Chambers v. State, 309 U.S. 227, 60 S.Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716; Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568; Ziang Sung Wan v. United States, 266 U.S. 1, 45 S.Ct. 1, 69 L.Ed. 131.
It is next contended that the lower court erred in its order overruling and denying the defendant's motion requiring the State of Florida to produce for the purpose of inspection on the part of counsel for the defendant the confessions of the defendant; that the request to the trial court was seasonably made prior to the trial and the order of denial as made was contra to the spirit and meaning of Section 154 of Chapter 19554, Acts of 1939, Laws of Florida; and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flowers v. State
... ... or reward held out to obtain it, the confession is properly ... admitted into evidence. Likewise it is the law that if an ... alleged confession was not freely and voluntarily made, it is ... error to admit the same into evidence against the party ... making it. See Williams v. State, 143 Fla. 826, 197 ... So. 562; Clay v. State, 143 Fla. 204, 196 So. 462; ... Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203; ... Cawthon v. State, 118 Fla. 394, 159 So. 366; ... Dabney v. State, 119 Fla. 341, 161 So. 380; ... Harrison v. State, 110 Fla. 420, 148 So. 882; ... ...
-
People v. White, Docket No. 43473
...People, 177 Colo. 144, 493 P.2d 9 (1972); Connecticut, State v. Walters, 145 Conn. 60, 138 A.2d 786 (1958); Florida, Williams v. State, 143 Fla. 826, 197 So. 562 (1940); Illinois, People v. Gillespie, supra; Indiana, Conrad v. State, 262 Ind. 446, 317 N.E.2d 789 (1974); Maryland, Shanks v. ......
-
Walker v. State
...by both the litigant and the tested item have been rejected. See Mann v. State, 420 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla.1982); Williams v. State, 143 Fla. 826, 833-834, 197 So. 562 (1940) (holding that blood-grouping evidence was admissible where the respective blood types of the defendant and victim could......
-
Harrison v. State
... ... The rule supra was ... reaffirmed by this Court in Dixon v. State, 13 Fla ... 636, and Coffee v. State, 25 Fla. 501, 6 So. 493, 23 ... Am.St.Rep. 525 ... The above rule has ... never been abandoned but is now in harmony with our previous ... rulings. See Williams v. State, 143 Fla. 826, 197 ... So. 562; Clay v. State, 143 Fla. 204, 196 So. 462; ... Smith v. State, 135 Fla. 835, 186 So. 203; ... Cawthon v. State, 118 Fla. 394, 159 So. 366; ... Dabney v. State, 119 Fla. 341, 161 So. 380; ... Harrison v. State, 110 Fla ... [12 So.2d 311.] ... ...