State v. BostickState v. Bostick
Lead Opinion
A majority of the court ruled out the confession.
—It аppears that the prisoner is a servant girl, between the age of twelve and thirteen years; and a shrewd, sensible, and artful child. If she'has such mental capacity as renders her amenable to the law for the commission of crime, she has sufficient mental capacity to make a confession of her guilt.
A confession, clearly prоved to have been deliberately and voluntarily made, is among the strongest proofs of guilt. But it has been said by some eminent jurists, that, as verbal confessions are so often misunderstood or misrepresented, from a want of attention, the improper use of language, or the uncertainty of memory,-they are at best, but a doubtful species of evidеnce; and at all times ought to be received with great caution. And where promises of favor or threats arе used, the great danger is, that the confession, whether verbal or written, may be untrue; proceeding, not from a sensе of guilt, but from the influence of hope or fear. In such cases, the confession is rejected. Therefore, a confession obtained by temporal inducement, by threat, or by a promise or hope of favor, having some reference to the party’s escape from the charge, held out by a person in authority, is inadmissible. A master or mistress is considered as a person in authority, as well as a magistrate, sheriff, or constable. However slight the promise or threat may have been, the confession cannot be received. Therefore, where a party brought before a committing magistrate, and before he said any thing, was told by the magistrate’s clerk, that what he said, would be used for him, or аgainst him, on his trial; the confession was rejected: the learned judge remarking, that telling the prisoner, what he said would bе used in his favor on his trial, was a direct inducement to him to make a confession. So where the prisoner was told, that it would be worse for him if he did not confess, or that it would be better for him if he did; and, where the prisoner was under the charge of murder, it was said to him, “ you are under a suspicion of this, and
The case now before the court is much stronger. Here is a servant girl between twelve and thirteen yеars of age, charged with arson, the punishment of which offence is death. One or two unavailing attempts had beеn made, to induce her to confess. After-wards her mistress took her into another room, and questioned her whether shе did the act. The child at first denied it. Her mistress then told her, “ that she was suspected of the offence, and if she confеssed it, the suspicion would not be stronger; that she (the mistress,) did not expect to do any thing with her, but was going to send her home.” Thе prisoner then confessed, that when she went up stairs in the evening, she placed the candle under the clothеs which "hung from the bed. Here then is an inducement to confess; a promise of favor held out by a person in authority, аnd a hope raised in the mind of the child, that she would be sent to her home. Hence, a doubt and uncertainty arise, whеther the confession was not made, more under the influence of hope, than from a consciousness of guilt. Thе prisoner’s confession must therefore be rejected.
Dissenting Opinion
dissented.—The principle of the cases on this subject, is, that any promise of favor held out to a person, which might influence him to suppose it would be better for him to confess the crime, will exclude such confession from being given in evidence; for the danger is that this hope, thus held out to an agitated mind, might possibly induce an untrue confession of guilt. (2 Russ. Cr. 826; Swift’s Ev. 131-2.) Mere persuasions, therefore, to confession, or indeеd, urgent solicitations, will not exclude the confession, unless a prospect is presented to the mind of the aсcused, of advantage or benefit to be derived from the confession. The question is not whether what was said to thе prisoner induced the confession, (for that would exclude every confession that was asked for;) but whether what wаs said to the prisoner induced the belief that a confession of guilt, would place him in a better condition than hе was before confession; which would be holding out to him a real benefit. (2 Russ. Cr. 845-6.) All of the cases cited may be tested by this rule; and then we are only to inquire, not whether the remarks of Mrs. Fisher to the prisoner induced her to confess, but whether those remarks held out to her the prospect, or idea, that she would be in a better condition if she did confess, and thus presented a real inducement to the confession of a falsehood. (Rex vs. Shepherd, 7 C. & P. 579;
Confession ruled out, and the prisoner was acquitted.