Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 12 November 1894
• Citation: 72 Miss. 117,16 So. 296
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: JIM WILLIAMS v. THE STATE

16 So. 296

72 Miss. 117

JIM WILLIAMS v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 12, 1894

FROM the circuit court of Warren county. HON. JOHN D. GILLAND Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder, and appealed. The facts relevant to the only point passed on by the court are stated in the opinion.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Miller Smith & Hirsh, for appellant.

A confession, before it is admissible in evidence, must be shown to be voluntary. Garrard v. State, 50 Miss 147; Cady v. State, 44 Ib., 332; Dick v. State, 30 Ib., 593; Frank v. State, 39 Ib., 705. To hold that, when the alleged confession was made, the mind of the accused was free and uninfluenced by the surroundings, would be ridiculous. It was not, to him, a question of confessing his guilt, but of saving his life. For a similar case, see Young v. State, 68 Ala. 569.

Frank Johnston, attorney-general, for the state.

The confession was admissible. Defendant was simply asked if he had killed deceased, and he replied that he had. The fact that no threats were used was repeatedly brought out on the examination. The second confession, even if inadmissible, did not affect the competency of the previous confession, voluntarily made. There was never a suggestion of threat in reference to that.

OPINION

COOPER, C. J.

The errors assigned and argued by counsel are:

1. That the verdict is not supported by the evidence.

2. That the court erred in admitting evidence of the confessions of defendant, which confessions, it is contended, are not shown to have been voluntary, but were extorted from the defendant by threats and violence.

The first error assigned is not well taken. The evidence not only abundantly supports the conviction, but reaches as near to demonstration as can be possible. But an important part of the evidence is the confession of the appellant, and the fate of the verdict depends upon the competency of this evidence. The confessions were proved by the witness, Emanuel Ellis, who gives, in substance, this account of the circumstances under which they were made. After the death of the deceased had been discovered, a number of persons, including the witness, the accused and one Clem (an elder in the church of accused), were present at the place where the body was lying. The witness says: "When I first saw him [the accused] that morning, he was with the rest of us viewing the body. Then we followed him back to Mrs. Newman's, followed his track, and we charged him with it, suspecting by his track. Then he ran. We then tied him and carried him back in the woods. He then told us he killed Uncle Ran, whilst he was tied. We did not make out like we were going to hang him down there; we did nothing to him at all. It was when we asked him about the stick that we pretended to hang him, about fifteen or twenty minutes afterwards. We did not put a rope around his neck; just said we were going to hang him. We carried him off as though taking him to a convenient spot. We just did that to get the stick, when he said he killed him with a stick; we did not do that to hurt him in any way, except that the stick would be evidence he killed him." Again, the witness, describing the particular circumstances of the confession, said: "After he first told us he killed him, he denied it. I don't know what made him tell it first. Clem, the elder, done the talking with him, and I told him that it would be best for him to own he killed this man, if he did it. He first said, 'If you all say so,' and Clem said, 'We don't want anything like that; we want you to tell if you killed this man; if you say you did do it, we will send you to the circuit court, and if you say you did not kill him, we will turn you loose right now,' and he said, 'Well, I will tell you, I killed him,' and Clem said, 'What did you kill him for?' and he said, 'Well, the devil got before me.'" Again, the witness said: "The way I happened to find the stick was, there was twelve men of us took Uncle Jim [the accused] by himself, and we got him off to talk with him, and we asked Uncle Jim did he kill this man. He made an answer to the question. I did not use any threats with him at all. He answered me when I asked him; he said he killed the man. No threats were used toward Uncle Jim; he did not tell us why he killed him; he said he killed him with a rattan stick first. The way we found out the stick was, we took Uncle Jim and carried him around across the bridge, and carried him in the woods a little piece, and we had him tied there. When he tried to get away, we tied him to keep him from getting away, and then we brought him back down there to Uncle Ran, and when we brought him back down there, we took them twelve men off, and we argued that we would ask Uncle Jim, and asked him about the stick, and Uncle Jim he said he killed him with a rattan stick, and his elder asked him where he put the stick, and he told Clem to come on and he would show him, and we all went right on with him, some having hold of the rope, and he carried us way off through the woods, contrary course from the stick, and the stick was right there by the dead man. Clem, the elder, said, 'Boys, I don't believe that stick is where he was going to show us,' and we just let him believe we was going to hang him, and I ran up the tree, and he said, 'Hold on, boys, I will tell you where it was,' and we asked him where it was, and he said, 'Come on back,' and we carried him back there, and he said, 'Look right over there in the bushes.' Uncle Jim pointed out this stick. Jim McDonald picked the stick up first in his presence, and Clem asked him, 'Is that the stick you killed him with?' and he said, 'Yes.'"

Some of the testimony of the witness, Ellis, was given before the court on a preliminary examination, and in the absence of the jury, and some of it before the jury after the court had declared its competency. Over the objection of the defendant, the testimony of this witness was permitted by the court to go to the jury, and the court instructed for the defendant as follows: "Unless the jury believe from the evidence that the confession made by the accused was a voluntary one, they must disregard it altogether in making up their verdict."

In Garrard v. State, 50 Miss. 147, it was held that where there was a conflict of testimony as to whether a confession was voluntary, a question of fact determinable by the jury was raised, and that the court properly submitted to the jury the question of the competency of the confession. This rule, somewhat modified, probably prevails in other jurisdictions. In Rice on Evidence, vol. 3, p. 308, it is said that "where there is conflicting testimony, the humane practice is for the judge, if he decides that it is admissible, to instruct the jury that they may consider all the evidence, and that they should exclude the confession, if, upon the whole evidence in the case, they are satisfied it was not the voluntary act of the defendant. Com. v. Cuffee, 108 Mass. 285; Com. v. Nott, 135 Mass. 269; Com. v. Smith, 119 Mass. 305; Com. v. Preece, 140 Mass. 276, 5 N.E. 494."

In view of...