whenever there is evidence sufficient to raise a question as to the weight to which a confession is entitled at the hands of the jury, the court must refer the question of the voluntariness of the confession to the jury
How later courts described this case
- whenever there is evidence sufficient to raise a question as to the weight to which a confession is entitled at the hands of the jury, the court must refer the question of the voluntariness of the confession to the jury
- "Whenever there is evidence, not sufficient to require exclusion of the alleged confession, but sufficient to raise a question as to the weight to which it is entitled at the hands of the jury, the court must refer the question of the voluntarity of the confession to the jury under proper instructions.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Chief Justice Hilliard
dissenting.
In the matter of the confession of guilt admitted in evidence, the record here, as I am persuaded, parallels the composite of the records in recent cases determined by the Supreme Court of the United States relative to confessions, cited in the court’s opinion, namely, Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49 , 69 Sup. Ct. 1347, 93 L. Ed. 1434 ; *325 Turner v. Pennsylvania, 338 U. S. 62 , 69 Sup. Ct. 1352, 93 L. Ed. 1443 ; Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U. S. 68, 69 Sup. Ct. 1354, 93 L. Ed. 1440 . The conclusions reached in those cases, as I think, should be regarded as controlling. In that view, and not pausing for extended exposition, I find it consistent to dissent. The details of the offense, much emphasized in the court’s opinion, are well calculated to cause even judges, for the nonce, to forget rules of criminal procedure, and justify on the enormity of the offending. It were well, I think, ever to keep in mind, that, “The history of liberty has largely been the history of observance of procedural safeguards.” McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332 , 63 Sup. Ct. 608, 87 L. Ed. 819 .