State v. DayState v. Day
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Veazey
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Veazey, J.This is an information for stealing a horse, wagon, hаrness and buffalo robe. Numerous exceрtions were taken on the trial, but the only onе which we are all agreed must be sustained is thаt to the admission of the evidence tending tо show a confession by the respondent. It аppears that while she was under arrest аnd in jail in Sherbrooke in Canada, she was visited by the sheriff and state’s attorney who there had conversation with her. The sheriff was improved as a witness by the State, and testified first that on one occasion when he visited the respondent with the state’s attorney, no inducements to confess were held out to her by either of them, but afterwards said “ that- he presumed he аnd the state’s attorney both told respondеnt it would be better for her to tell the whole stоry, and the punishment would be likely to be lighter.” This was nоt contradicted. Objection *511was, therefоre, made to the witness’ testifying to what she said ; but the objection ■ was overruled, and the witness wаs allowed to testify to the conversation which tended to show admissions of guilt, to all which the respondent excepted. She was quite young; in jail, away from friends, and without counsel tо advise her. We think the admission of this evidence was a violation of the settled rule in this Statе, “ that a confession must never be received in evidence when the respondent hаs been influenced by any threat or promise.” The discussion of the question by the late Chief Justiсe Pierpoint, in State v. Walker, 34 Vt. 300, is so applicable tо this case it is sufficient to refer to that opinion.
Another question is made, that the judgment of the County Court that the confession was voluntary аnd the evidence should be admitted, is conсlusive and cannot be revised by this court.
The same question was raised in State v. Walker, supra; and wе think the true view was there expressed, to the effect, that when the testimony as to the promise, threat or inducement, is conflicting, аnd the court must pass upon the character and weight of the testimony upon eaсh side, in order to determine whether the cоnfession is voluntary or not, the decision therеon is final. But in a case like this where there is nо conflict in the testimony or dispute about the facts, the decision of the County Court admitting the testimony may be revised in this court. State v. Phelps, 11 Vt. 116.
The judgment of the County Court reversed, new trial granted, and the case remanded.