Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Lee M. Russell, of Jackson, for appellant. It is a very familiar and well established rule that a confession is not admissible in evidence, unless it is made freely and voluntarily, without restraint and without hope of reward or fear of punishment. Simon v. State, 37 Miss. 288. Subsequent confessions, if under the same conditions, are likewise barred. Confessions are inadmissible for any purpose when made under the influence of sufficient threat or a sufficient promise. Syllabus 1, sec. 519, Miss. Digest; Blalack v. State, 79 Miss. 517, 31 So. 105; Harvey v. State, 20 So. 837; Pringle v. State, 108 Miss. 802, 67 So. 455; Matthews v. State, 102 Miss. 549, 59 So. 842; Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 196, 65 So. 218; Clash v. State, 146 Miss. 811, 112 So. 370; White v. State, 129 Miss. 182, 91 So. 903; Fisher v. State, 145 Miss. 116, 110 So. 361. We desire to place especial emphasis upon the fact that no witness, nor fact, was stated in the entire record affirming that the accused gave his statement free and voluntary. The defendant, himself a competent witness in his own behalf presumed to be innocent, testifies unequivocally that he was cursed, abused, beaten, threatened and grossly mistreated until he was "frightened" to death and yet, with all this testimony uncontradicted, the court held this "alleged confession" free, voluntary, and in all respects competent and admissible. W.D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state. When the state offered the confession, the defendant asked for and obtained a preliminary inquiry into its competency. At this inquiry the witness, Therrill, showed that the defendant was under arrest and on his way to Jackson when the defendant, himself, called the officer aside and related his participation in this burglary and larceny. The witness qualified the confession by showing that it was freely and voluntarily made; that he made no threats, promised no immunity and this confession came freely and voluntarily from the defendant. If the defendant wanted to put on any proof to show that the confession was not admissible, it was his duty to do so at the preliminary inquiry. Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44, 3 So. 188; Lee v. State, 137 Miss. 329, 102 So. 296; Perkins v. State, 160 Miss. 720, 135 So. 357; Weatherford v. State, 164 Miss. 888, 143 So. 853. Argued orally by Lee M. Russell, for appellant, and by W.D. Conn, Jr., for the state.
Judges
  • McGowen, J., delivered the opinion of the court.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Lee M. Russell, of Jackson, for appellant. It is a very familiar and well established rule that a confession is not admissible in evidence, unless it is made freely and voluntarily, without restraint and without hope of reward or fear of punishment. Simon v. State, 37 Miss. 288. Subsequent confessions, if under the same conditions, are likewise barred. Confessions are inadmissible for any purpose when made under the influence of sufficient threat or a sufficient promise. Syllabus 1, sec. 519, Miss. Digest; Blalack v. State, 79 Miss. 517, 31 So. 105; Harvey v. State, 20 So. 837; Pringle v. State, 108 Miss. 802, 67 So. 455; Matthews v. State, 102 Miss. 549, 59 So. 842; Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 196, 65 So. 218; Clash v. State, 146 Miss. 811, 112 So. 370; White v. State, 129 Miss. 182, 91 So. 903; Fisher v. State, 145 Miss. 116, 110 So. 361. We desire to place especial emphasis upon the fact that no witness, nor fact, was stated in the entire record affirming that the accused gave his statement free and voluntary. The defendant, himself a competent witness in his own behalf presumed to be innocent, testifies unequivocally that he was cursed, abused, beaten, threatened and grossly mistreated until he was "frightened" to death and yet, with all this testimony uncontradicted, the court held this "alleged confession" free, voluntary, and in all respects competent and admissible. W.D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state. When the state offered the confession, the defendant asked for and obtained a preliminary inquiry into its competency. At this inquiry the witness, Therrill, showed that the defendant was under arrest and on his way to Jackson when the defendant, himself, called the officer aside and related his participation in this burglary and larceny. The witness qualified the confession by showing that it was freely and voluntarily made; that he made no threats, promised no immunity and this confession came freely and voluntarily from the defendant. If the defendant wanted to put on any proof to show that the confession was not admissible, it was his duty to do so at the preliminary inquiry. Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44, 3 So. 188; Lee v. State, 137 Miss. 329, 102 So. 296; Perkins v. State, 160 Miss. 720, 135 So. 357; Weatherford v. State, 164 Miss. 888, 143 So. 853. Argued orally by Lee M. Russell, for appellant, and by W.D. Conn, Jr., for the state.
Judges
  • McGowen, J., delivered the opinion of the court.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

WRIGHT v. STATE.

CRIMINAL LAW.

In burglary prosecution, admission of confession which was induced by hope of reward held out to accused held error.

McGowen, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The conviction of burglary herein cannot be upheld by this court. The confession should have been excluded for the reason that it was induced by the hope of reward, held out to the appellant.

Reversed and remanded.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

WRIGHT v. STATE
(Jun 10, 1935)