State v. . ParishState v. . Parish
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Reade
The confessions of a defendant are admissible when they were voluntary, and inadmissible when they were not. But how can we look into the defendant’s heart *494 and see how it was? “We have to look at the сircumstances of each case and at human nature as wе know it to be, and judge what is reasonable about it.
The defendant was charged in his neighborhood with being a common thief. Notice had been given for a neighborhood meeting. They were to meet on Saturday. Before Saturday came the defendant went to one of the neighbors who was engaged in the movement, and talked to him abоut it, and denied that he had had any thing to do with the stealing, which had been going on. The neighbor told him he would let him know about it next week. On Saturday the nеighbors met, a dozen or more, “to consult as to what wrae to bе done with the defendant about his stealing so much” — to use the languagе of the witness — “and they concluded that if he would leave the State and never return they would not interrupt him.” And they asked oneof their number to tell him of it. And on Monday following the defendant fled, leaving his wife and children.
Now, what did the defendant have a right to apprehend from that public meeting? Not a prosecution, because that was not thе way to set it on foot. And besides it was not for one, or any particular stealing, but for “ stealing so much.” They had adjudged him to be a common thief, out of the reach of the law, and they meant to deal with him under a law of their own. He would have known what to expect if prosecuted in Court, — conviction and punishment if guilty, or acquittal if innocеnt. But they had already convicted him by common consent of “steаling so much” and the punishment which they meant to inflict was not prescribеd in any book. And nothing is so terrific to brute or man, as the mad pursuit of his own kind. If he had not left on Monday and the neighbors had met again and arrestеd him, or “ interrupted him,” as their language was, would any one suppose he was in a condition for voluntary action? He would have known thаt it would do *495 him no good to deny it, because before the meeting hе had gone to one of them and denied it; and yet after that they determined that he must leave, or be “ interrupted,” whatever that might mean.
The condition upon which he was not to be “ interrupted‘” was, that hе was to leave and “ never return.” But after an absence of a few months he did return to his father-in-law’s, getting there before day, and in a fеw hours, early in the morning, his father-in-law had gathered a number of those sаme neighbors, and he found himself in their power.
Now from what we know of humаn nature, what are we to assume was the state of his mind? Supposе him to be innocent, what would have been his apprehension ? “ Thеy told me if I did not leave and never return they would mob me. I have returnеd and here they are to mob me. I tried denying my guilt and that did no good. It may be that if I will not irritate them by further denial I may appease them by confession.” And therefore when the prosecutor “ went for him” — a cant phrase by which we understand, fiercely accosted him with the inquiry, “ are you not ashamed to try to break up an old a man as I am by stealing his sheep and hogs?” the defendant “sata second hanging down his heаd and said ‘the first two.hogs you lost, I did not get.’ ” The confession itself shows the stаte of his mind. It was neither a confession nor a denial. lie was afraid to do either. “ Which way I turn is death.”
We are of the opinion that the confession ought not to have been admitted.
There is error. Let this be certified &c.
Per CuRxam. Venire de novo.