Minton v. StateMinton v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
l. Although a child eight years old, on a preliminary examination had for the purpose of testing his competency as a witness, stated that he did not know what an oath was, yet where he also stated that he knew what it was “to go up in the court-house and swear you hay© to tell the truth,” that the law would punish him if he told a story, and that he was bound to tell the truth when sworn, and the examination as a whole disclosed such a degree of intelligence and knowledge on the child‘s part as to, satisfy the judge of his competency, this court will not reverse a ruling permitting the child to be examined as a witness concerning the facts in issue.
2. That one under arrest and accused of a crime voluntarily asked another “Would it be better for me to tell the truth?” or “What had X better do,” and received the reply “You had better tell the truth about it,” affords no catfse for excluding from evidence a confession then made, on the ground that it was improperly induced by another. “The hope that excludes is that which some other person excites.” Penal Code, § 1006, citing Bohanan v. The State, 92 Ga. 32. And see Miller v. The State, 94 Ga. 1, 11.
3. The liability of a witness to misunderstand the language of one making a confession is one of the reasons for the rule requiring all conf essions to be scanned with care, but not the only one; and while a judge in charging a jury .should not use words which may -impress them with the idea that this is the only reason for receiving -a confession with caution, his so doing will not of itself be cause for a new trial.
4. There was sufficient evidence to warrant- the verdict, no material error was committed, and the record discloses no valid reason for granting a new trial. Judctment affirmed.