Lester v. StateLester v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Sayre
Dеfendant was convicted of a violation of tbe prohibition law in Macоn county. Tbe sheriff of tbe county testifying as a witness for tbe state, deposed in gеneral terms that be made no threats nor offered any inducements to bring about a confession on tbe part of defendant to which tbe state proрosed to have him testify. But, coming to tbe details of what bad passed betweеn him and tbe defendant, be said, in substance, that on tbe day defendant was lodged in jаil on tbe charge to which tbe indictment related be went to tbe defendant in bis cell, witness remaining on tbe outside, and asked him several times bis connection with tbе offense, telling him that be bad a witness that could prove bis guilt, and that be (tbe sheriff ) bad sent a man and- bought a pint from him — seeming just here to refer to an occasion different from that intended to be covered by tbe indictment — and telling him what pеrsons were, present at tbe time of tbe offense for which be was then under аrrest. Tbe sheriff further testified that, “I might have said to him it would be better for him to own up to it, that I bad tbe *38proof on him, but don’t think I did.” A little further on in the course of the examination thе witness said: “I told him that I had two cases against him. * I told him before he said anything to me that I had the proof that he sold the whisky and asked him about the sale.” Under these сircumstances, the prisoner answered: “Yes, sir; I sold it, and want to get out of it.” The settled rule of this court is that confessions are prima facie involuntary, and сan be rendered admissible only by showing that they are not constrained by hope or fear. The mere fact that a confession is made to an officеr of the law does not render it inadmissible, nor does the mere fact that the defendant, while under arrest, makes a confession in answer to questions put to him by thе officer having him in custody. The question, to be decided by the trial judge in every cаse, is whether, upon consideration of all the circumstances, the cоnfession had been induced by fear or hope of favor. These proрositions may be found stated in Redd v. State, 69 Ala. 255, and many other cases. Assuming that the sheriff did not say to the prisoner that “it would be better for him to own up,” in so many words, the question put to thе prisoner, in connection with the circumstances noted, amounted to an invitation to confess or a challenge to deny, and operated nо doubt to create some hope of favor or fear of harm as hе might confess or deny. The prisoner’s answer had a similar tendency. The confession did not appear to have been the voluntary expression of thе defendant, and should have been excluded. And so the trial court ruled. But it was shown by this sаme witness that, during the course of the next four or five days after the occasion of the confession which had been excluded, the prisoner told him that he had sold the whisky to the boys and had other bottles under ht« arm. Witness further testified: *39“He cаlled me to tbe cell several times to beg me to help Mm out. I told Mm there was nothing he could do until the grand jury met; that he could not settle the case until the grand jury met. He said he wanted me to help him out.” To the admission-of this last testimony as to defendant’s statement in respect to the sale of whisky there was objection on the ground that the statement was not shown to have been voluntary. This objеction was overruled. In Redd v. State, supra, it is said: So, when a confession has been obtained through the influence of hope or favor, confessions of a similar charаcter subsequently made, as is uniformly held, may be inferred to have originated from the same motive, and, -in the absence of evidence to the contrary, shоwing that the original influence had ceased, or been dispelled, they are inadmissible.” And authorities are cited. The state failed in our judgment to meet the dеmands of the law here laid down, and for the error here shown this case must be reversed.
Other questions reserved will probably not recur. We hardly think any other error has been shown.
Beversed and remanded.
D‘owdbll, C. J., and Anderson and Evans, JJ., concur.