*1 MISSOURI, COURT OF SUPREME Meyer. prayed greater for in the amount than diet alleged petition. But not consider further we need disposed as if not of them have been errors, all, .of most, already upon by we have announced, conclusions likely any á plaint it is not there will cause for com- retrial thereof. on account judgment is and the reversed cause remanded expressed. Rag- according to the
retrial views herein sitting. G., concurs; Brown, G., land, opinion by foregoing PER CURIAM:—The Small,'* adopted opinion the court. All is C.., judges concur. Appellant. MEYER,
THE v. ALVIN STATE Two, Division March 1922. Identity Questions Appeal: Deter- Former
1. CRIMINAL LAW: prosecution, Where, appeal criminal mined. a in a on second comparison appears on the the record of the record with from a appeal question appeal, former determined former that the into deceived or misled defendant had been was whether appeal guilty, is whether the second on while involuntary, by made defendant was confession identity questions render the involved is no such there appeal the second the law of the case on on the first decision peal. made, Admissibility. Confession: confession -: Where charge, an officer one under a criminal arrest law, any improper him and without exerted without influences advantages promises worldly any harm threats of him, is admissible in evidence. such confession 293] Yol.
3-, Defendant, Question. Jury under while -: -: -: being rohhery, questioned having charged committed arrest guilt. attorney orally prosecuting admitted the sheriff and guilty, pleaded signed *2 and a written confession He afterwards penitentiary. imprisonment He years’ the five was sentenced to judgment employed aside the moved to set counsel and thereafter ground or into deceived misled he had been promise by prosecuting relying at- guilty, the on a the of by paroled. torney motion overruled His was that he would be appeal judgment court, was and the reversed the the trial sheriff thereafter the the case On the trial of cause remanded. testify attorney permitted prosecuting oral were and admissions, not confession was introduced but the written “sign” written induced to the that he He testified evidence. parole. Held, by promise it was for the the confession jury the admissions were the evidence whether determine -on involuntary, having voluntary the trial court submitted fair instructions in full and there such
no error. Cross-Examination. Where the de- as'Witness: -: Defendant prosecution, ain criminal in his behalf is a witness own fendant attorney, by the State’s under Sec- him cross-examination not to be to a limited mere Revised Statutes tion by subjects examination, categorical, covered direct review subject-matter may covered embrace but
in chief. Edgar B. -Appeal Circuit Court. —So». from diaries St. Judge. WoolfolJc, Affirmed. appellant. Wage, Jr.,
Wm.
for
by appellant
(1)
sheriff
to tbe
Tile confession
voluntary
attorney
confession,
prosecuting
was not a
against
in evidence
admissible
therefore,
and,
appellant.
Caper-
v.
539;
263 Mb.
State
Keller,
v.
State
v.
316;
181 Mo.
State
314;
Hunter,
276 Mo.
ton,
SUPREME COURT OP MISSOURI,
(2)
478;
State
Thomas,
Jesse W. Barrett, Attorney-General, respondent. Assistant Davis, (1) The confession or admission of the defendant properly question admitted in evidence. The whether or not it was was a for the (cid:127) jury. Hopkirk, 284; Moore, State v. 84 Mo. State v. 460; Steb- 406; (2) appel- bins, The cross-examination of Ill 293] Yol. range beyond lant in chief did v.'Ivey, Foley, proper. State 192 S. W. 736. robbery in of first de
REEVES, C.—Convicted gree years’ imprisonment sentenced to five penitentiary, appeals. information defendant charged that defendant at St. on Feb Charles, Missouri, ruary dol Frank robbed one J. Bull seven of ap urged points only lars. Two are of the basis peal: Appellant prejudiced
(a) complains that he was objections a evidence over admission ground him con- confession made that such involuntary. fession was
(b) having And that own behalf, testified beyond statutory went cross-examination bounds. apprehended Appellant Yirgil were one Dale n felony, shortly su- commission after the spicion being Upon they it. committed searched money portion taken from Bull was found pellant’s having sock the balance accounted for in spent the saloons. one them A mask been cap an from each taken from extra incriminating Upon sher- these circumstances, them. interrogated jail, them to the where were took iff separately. plea
They them that a confessed is claimed by parole. In guilty accordance be followed was to duly alleged agreement with this *4 punishment whereupon the the court assessed entered, penitentiary. imprisonment years’ the of at five each accomplice procured Appellant, then counsel and his asiije judgment and sentence the filed a motion set they and deceived ground been misled that had the on entering they guilty. They pleas asserted their agreement the upon an counsel, not obtained had SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, prosecutor paroled. and the sheriff that were to be Testimony on the- issue raised was heard court. the The court appeal overruled this motion and an taken judgment both defendants. This court reversed the upon grounds remanded the cause each case the plea “that defendant guilty entered a under mis apprehension rights premises toas in the ac and on ' being count of misled.” [State v. Dale, Meyer, S. W. 763; State S. W. 765.] Upon appellant objected the trial of this case any alleged evidence ground confession, the involuntary'. objection same was The was overruled corroborating and with evidence the case was submitted to a following which the returned verdict: jury, robbery “We, the find the defendant degree in the punishment first and we assess his therefor years’ imprisonment at five penitentiary.” in the pertinent appear Other facts will in the course opinion. Appellant I. invokes decision of this court appeal the former constituting law of the case conclusive on the same facts in the second trial. haveWe right compare this record with (State former one Former Appeal: Different Question. 106) whether l. c. and ascertain trial court the first question the same before.the question only before the court trial. in the second been deceived Had was: first
when here guilty! court found This into misled laid invoked rule down misled, and been had Stephens, the effect of State in the case always exercise accustomed been have “courts that a prose receiving pleas guilty, in great of care deal prisoner not made has that the to see felonies, cution for misapprehension or being plea, by or under misled, ” no former case seen that thus It like. will involuntary voluntary or question raised toas was wheth- here confession, but nature of *5 293] Vol. Meyer.. appellant er had been guilty. his misled appellant voluntarily record this is: Did
implicate himself in the commission the crime?
II. The properly trial court while excluded the he preliminary question determined the ad- to the missibility of the confession made to the sheriff and prosecuting attorney. [State 695.] Patterson, Whether involuntary a confession is depends upon age, disposition the character, sex, 'past experience (State of the accused 559), emphasize 239, 167 S. W. and we should to rule the effect impropriety that there was no Confession: interrogating appellant the officers and his Voluntary or accomplice respect participa Involuntary. to their tion in the crime. [State v. Thomas, 189, l. c. 210, 211, 157 330.] S. W. And even if used cunning deception, artifice, falsehood and still con fession would not be inadmissible. [State rendered Phelps, Mo. c. 128, l. 478.]
Appellant may entering plea been have misled into yet may voluntarily he have confessed- part extra-judicial crime, which event his state- against ments supported could him used if and, proof independent corpus may delicti, be con- [State victed. v. Cox, 175 S. If 50.]W. any promises were made to after confes- it involuntary sion, objectionable would render such confession evidence.
Reverting following ques- the record we find the propounded tions and answers returned pellant testimony: in his statement, you “Q. Wasn’t it that your would be in best interest to be a man tell only truth it? thing about A. The caused me sign you you got was what told would me, see that I parole, you out on my were one of friends, sign that’s all me to it; caused if it hadn’t been signed I that, wouldn’t have it.” Mo.t&emdash;8
m MISSOURI, OP SUPREME COURT again the court:
And plead agreed A. And guilty? Court: *6 “The parole signed I to I Yes, sir, was receive if confes- sion.” " Virgil upon fol- Dale And cross-examination of lowing transpired: boys just go you on as well He said, “The Court: .they guilty? plead this,
and got That before after A. was get parole,, questioning promised to and us on done me guilty, get pleaded him if out if I asked I could we ' night, late. that he itNo, was too said, That’s Q. counsel defendant: Russell, “Mr. you A. Yes, after confession? sir.” made this testimony tending show that There was other promises appellamt it was al- were made to after if leged sign that he admissions consideration would guilty. That and enter a was the question adjudicated confession former ease. here in that a confession “The is settled to be law now made to an in con law, admissible must be sequence officer if improper him, exerted influences threat, wordly advantage promise of harm or no accused the master of official, the n directly confession when is admissible.” concerned, Phelps, supra; Hopkirk, 278; v. 84 Mo. [State v. State Meyers, 542; v. 99 Mo. Brooks, Mo. State Hedgepeth, 14; Brennan, v. 107; State State 401; State 487; Spaugh, Brooks, 74.] State n signed evi- written confession No offered attorney prosecuting dence. The sheriff and testified oral admissions. testimony
There
substantial
the court
warrant
submitting
jury
confession,
to the
in five full
instructions,
the court did this
and fair
given
appellant.
four
which were
at the instance of
proper.
84.]
220 Mo. l. c.
[State Brooks,
This
urges
strongly here the case
Counsel for
adjudica-
That case
an
rulings made when said was here on a ease former ap- peal (State v. Powell, 258 Mo. 239), by reference to the facts of that case it be noted, will that differ materially from the facts here. In that case a colored boy was kept to a late up very hour of the night vigorously interrogated; appeared be “tired and worn out from the strain,” and this fact, considered the repeated bim statement it would “help tell the truth,” coerced a confession from unwilling lips and was objectionable. -In the at case bar the interrogations were not prolonged and the testimony undisputed there was friendliness between the officials and pellant, without overpersuasion. ( proper instructions necessarily found there were no threats or promises made of by the *7 ficers to compel admission, the absent threats promises an admission or confession is admissible. J. p. 721; C. 220 Brooks, [16 Mo. 74, 119 W. S. 353; State v. 98 Spaugh, 55;W. v. supra, S. Hedgepeth, supra, S. W. Patterson, supra; State Lee, S. W. And it here a 619.] jury question.
III. Appellant complains that he subjected a cross-examination of such nature deny as to him .the protection by Section 4036, vouch-safed Statutes Revised 1919. in Appellant his own testified that on the .behalf night of 21, he was 1919, arrested and taken to February „ „ jail testimony and his lim chief was . , „„ , . . . . V. . . Cross-Exammation. . himby ited his counsel to an effort nature of his admissions. The involuntary show the limited by attorney the State’s cross-examination subject-matter the examination covered strictly proper., Barrington, which was chief, [State The State’s S. W. 235.] review categorical not attorney should limited in direct [State covered subjects examination.. 56 W. S. Miller, 907.] MISSOURI, SUPREME COURT OF Thompson. against by complained do matters judgment lower court error, constitute Hailey concur. accordingly GO., and White, affirmed. opinion by Reeves, foregoing PER CURIAM:—The opinion All of adopted the court. C., is judges concur. Appellant. THOMPSON,
THE WILLIAM STATE Two, March 1922. Division conspiracy may acts A shown Proof of. CONSPIRACY: 1. joint purpose indicating between defendant and circumstances parties a crime. in the commission of to aid each other and other sought Liability for Act Another. Where it is --: of One another, responsible criminally person act for the to hold one way act that he authorized such some shown should be it; usually prima-facie to such con- case as aided directed spiracy the declarations or acts first be made out before must against co-conspirators, are admissible one another. Intent to Kill: Demurrer to Assault with Evi- -: Felonious jointly were defendant and two others indicted dence. Where kill, assaulting feloniously police four officers with intent proof a failure of where evidence shówed that de- there that, night question, . left arm fendant had lost his (cid:127) driving car, thirty hour, a Ford miles an he was motor over a passengers car, pur- slippery street had four and when n police in another officers car some one in his sued car fired *8 police car, de- hut there was evidence that shots at the no three them, participated act, evidence fired and the fendant not, time, man could at driven a one-armed the same have was that the shots under car and fired the circumstances. The most a Ford prove attempt escape pur- was an evidence tended officers, proof design suing but a common to commit another proof conspiracy was not to commit the offense crime with charged. which defendant Appeal Ralph Criminal from Jackson Court.—Hon. S. Judge.
Latshaw,