People v. Day

HOUSER, J.

From a judgment of conviction of the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and from an order by which her motion for a new trial was denied, defendant appeals to this court.

Although appellant's brief on appeal contains several different specifications of error, upon each of which she relies for a reversal of the judgment, it is deemed necessary that hut one of such assignments of error should occupy the attention of this court. It relates to the admissibility on the trial of the action of the alleged confession of defendant.

With reference only to the question submitted to the trial court which related to the admissibility of such confession, it appears that on the part of defendant many facts were admitted in evidence which tended to show that the alleged confession of defendant was not made either freely or voluntarily, or without hope, of immunity being extended to defendant, either by the district attorney or by the trial court. But as to such facts as were contradicted by evidence submitted by the People, in the decision herein none of them should he,. nor is, taken into consideration by this court. However, the record herein discloses the following undisputed facts: At the home of defendant, in the nighttime, or “late in the evening”, on February 25, 1931, without a warrant of arrest, but by means of showing their “credentials”, which consisted of a “badge” worn by each

[108]

of two so-called “investigators” from the office of the district attorney, against the wishes of defendant and over her objection thereto, she was “taken into custody” but “not arrested”. Prom her home she was taken by the “investigators” to the office of the district attorney, where she was questioned. Without any criminal charge being first filed or made by any person against defendant, she was then taken to a room in a hotel where she was kept “in custody” from February 25 to March 2, under constant guard by two women “investigators” from the office of the district attorney, during which time, not only by her guards but as well by other “investigators” connected with the office of the district attorney, she was questioned “at intervals”, or “from time to time”, not only relative to the offense of which she was subsequently charged and convicted, but also in connection with her knowledge of facts which were presumed to be material to the prosecution of another person on a charge which was similar to the charge which a considerable time later was made against defendant. On one occasion during her confinement in the hotel, accompanied by a guard, defendant was permitted to keep an appointment with the individual to whom reference has just been had, for the purpose of obtaining evidence intended to be used on the trial of a criminal action against that individual. On another occasion, under similar restraint, she was permitted to go to her home for the purpose of obtaining for her use some personal wearing apparel. One of the “investigators” testified that “she (defendant) cried on one or two occasions a little bit”.