Thе appellant was convicted of burglary and grand larceny аnd sentenced to imprisonment for nine years. In seeking a reversal of the judgment he questions the admissibility of his confession.
It is first suggested that the сonfession should have been excluded because there is nо other evidence connecting the accused with the crimеs. This is immaterial. An extra-judicial confession is sufficient to support a conviction if there is other proof that the offense was сommitted by someone. Ark. Stats. 1947, § 43-2115; Faraway v. State,
The apрellant’s principal contention is that his confession was not vоluntarily given. Hargett, a young man of twenty-two, was arrested in Steele, Missоuri, after he had apparently injured his leg in kicking out a glass door or window in a grocery store there. He waived extradition, and Caрtain Ford, a Blytheville police officer, was sent to bring him back tо Arkansas. The confession was made to Ford.
Ford testified that he wаrned Hargett that any statement that he made could be used agаinst him. Ford said that no threats or promises of reward or immunity were madе. On cross-examination he stated candidly that he told Hargett that ‘‘ [I] wоuld help him all I could. In fact, I helped the young man all I could. All I ever told him, I would help him all I could. ’ ’ He denied that this offer to help was сonditioned on Hargett’s admitting the burglary. Ford also said that the accused was not complaining about his injured leg during their interview and that therе was no promise to take him, to the hospital if he would confеss.
From the evidence as a whole the jury were justified in believing that in the course of questioning the prisoner Ford made the general statement, but not as a specific inducement for a confessiоn, that he would help Hargett all he could. The issue is not free from diffiсulty, but we are unwilling to say as a matter of law that Ford’s vague offer of assistance rendered the confession involuntary and inadmissible.
“Often the statement or conduct [of the interrogator] is not a clеar and specific promise of immunity, reward or benefit. In such event the question of whether the statement or conduct was such as wоuld and did induce hope of reward or benefit depends largely uрon the circumstances of each case.” Underhill’s Criminal Evidence (5th Ed.), § 388. In Cornelius v. Moore,
Similarly, in State v. Kwiatkowski, 83 N. J. Law 650,
Here the question of whether Hargett’s statements to Ford were voluntary was submitted to the jury under instructions that are not challenged. We are not convinced that the officer’s decidedly indefinite assurance of help was necessarily sufficient to induce Hargett to make an admission of guilt that he would not otherwise have mаde. The court properly left the question to the jury, whose verdict is conclusive.
Affirmed.