41 Ga. App. 341 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1930
The first count of the accusation in this case charges B. W. Smith with possessing intoxicating liquor, and the second count accuses him of having a still on his premises. The jury found the defendant guilty under the first count, and the exception here is to the judgment overruling his motion for a new trial.
It appears from the first special ground that the defendant
G. C. Bogers testified that the said agreement was signed on the first day of court in the solicitor’s office, after court had adjourned for the day; that the defendant stated that he was unable to meet his trial and pay a fine in the event of conviction, and asked the solicitor to carry the case to the July term of the court,; that the solicitor stated to the defendant that “it was a custom sometimes of the court, where a defendant was guilty of the charge, to permit the defendant to sign up a written stipulation to plead guilty in the case, and carry it over for a period;” that after thinking the matter over for a short time'the defendant stated that he was willing to sign an agreement admitting his guilt, and agreed to plead guilty at the next term of court; that the solicitor drew the agreement on, the back of the accusation and the defendant signed it freely and voluntarily; that no one tried to persuade the defendant to sign the writing, or threatened him in any way, or offered him any reward or immunity from punishment to induce him to sign the agreement; that neither the solicitor nor any one else held out to the defendant any hope of reward, “or made any representation to him, one way or the other, as to what his punishment might be when he eventually carried out his agreement.”
The solicitor testified that the defendant stated to him that he
The solicitor then offered said agreement in evidence, and counsel interposed the following objections to its admission: (1) Whether said writing was a plea of guilty or an agreement to plead guilty, defendant had withdrawn it on the call of the case and entered a plea of not guilty, and it could not be used as evidence against him on the trial of the case. (2) "Because, if it was being offered by the State as a confession of guilt, it would not be admissible for that purpose, because the State’s evidence relating to the manner and circumstances under which it was signed showed conclusively that it was procured under the hope of benefit and reward; the benefit to accrue being-three months additional time to make arrangements to raise money to employ counsel and pay a fine in the event of-final conviction, which the State’s evidence shows he did not have at the time he signed the agreement.” (3) “Because it was irrelevant and immaterial . . and tended only to confuse the issue . . and prejudice the defendant’s case.” The
Of course if the agreement under consideration were a technical plea of guilty, it would be inadmissible under the plain terms of the Penal Code (1910), § 971. However, being of the opinion that said agreement, entered into out of court and three months before the trial of the case, is not such a plea, we shall direct our attention to the question whether it was admissible in evidence as a confession. The law of confessions is laid down in the Penal Code (1910), § 1032, in this language: “To make a confession admissible, it must have been made voluntarily, without being induced by another, by the slightest hope of benefit or remotest fear of injury.” It appears that the defendant had no money with which to employ counsel or pay a fine in the event of his conviction, if the case were passed on at the April term of court. When the defendant approached the solicitor and apprised him of his necessitous situation, the solicitor told the defendant in effect that the case might be carried over, provided the defendant would sign such an agreement as he did sign. It will be noted that while the defendant approached the solicitor, it was the solicitor who stated the terms upon which the case might be carried over, and wrote the agreement on the accusation. We think the solicitor held out to the defendant a very lively hope of benefit, and that this hope induced the defendant to sign the agreement. There can be no question that this agreement, indorsed on the accusation by the solicitor and witnessed by the sheriff, was harmful to the defendant’s case; and since it can not be said that the evidence demanded the verdict, we are constrained to hold that the court committed reversible error in admitting the agreement in evidence.
Before leaving this case we shall take occasion to say that, while we are certain that in postponing the case under the circumstances and' in the manner indicated, the solicitor was prompted by the thought that he was doing an act of kindness, yet we are firmly of the opinion that the making of such agreements is contrary to the spirit of our law and to public policy. It is quite conceivable that a defendant might be so situated that he would sign an agreement similar to the one in question when he was not guilty of the offense charged. Indeed, in the instant ease the defendant admitted his guilt of “within charge;” that is to say, he admitted that he was
Judgment reversed.