holding that the issue of the voluntariness of a confession should have been submitted to the jury when the defendant confessed to stealing property from his employer after his employer promised he would not press charges, call the police, or fire the defendant
How later courts described this case
- holding that the issue of the voluntariness of a confession should have been submitted to the jury when the defendant confessed to stealing property from his employer after his employer promised he would not press charges, call the police, or fire the defendant
- holding confession may only be used when “freely and voluntarily made without having been induced by the expectation of any promised benefit.”
- reversing conviction because it was error to refuse to instruct jury to determine voluntariness of confession made to defendant’s employer/minister, who promised to not press charges
- to determine whether a confession is admissible when the defendant contends that the confession was influenced by a promise, test the degree of influence exerted.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
The state contends that the court did not err in refusing the requested charge because the evidence did not raise the issue, there being no testimony in the record to the effect that the promise made by Charles Jackson “was operating on the mind of the defendant at the time the confession was made and the defendant was induced thereby to make the confession.”
We quote from the testimony of the witness Charles Louis Jackson:
“Q. Well, when you searched around the building in the vacant lot, did you find the tires? A. No, I didn’t.
“Q. Did you then come back to this Defendant Allen Fisher, Jr. and ask him about the tires? A. Yes, sir, I did.
“Q. And what was his reply to you at that time?
“A. He told me that he didn’t take the tires.
“Q. What did you then do?
“A. Well, I told him that I was going to call the police and have them pick him up.
“I told him that if he had the tires I would wish that he would give them to me, or tell me where they were.
“I told him that I would even pay half of the tires and he would pay half, if he would just tell me that he got the tires.
“Q. Did he still deny taking them?
“A. He denied that he had the tires.
“Q. Did you then call the police ?
“A. Yes, I called the police.
“Q. Subsequent to your calling the police, did you go back and talk to this Defendant again?
“A. Yes, I went back and talked to him.
“Q. Did he say anything to you at that time about taking the tires ?
“A. Well, after I had questioned him over a period of time, about fifteen or twenty minutes — I wasn’t questioning him, I was just telling him some things about how good I had been to him, and that I was trying to help him make it, and I would help him any way that I could, so he just broke down and told me that he had taken the tires."
We remain convinced that the requested charge or one of similar import should have been given and the jury allowed to pass upon the question of whether or not the confession was induced by the promise made by his employer.
The state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.