People v. Castro
Before: Haynes
Synopsis
Criminal Law—Evidence—Confessions of Defendant—Inducement—Burden of Proof.—The burden is on the prosecution to show that confessions of a defendant charged with crime were made voluntarily and without previous -inducement; and where it appears that the defendant at first denied his guilt, and afterward confessed to the sheriff under improper representations and inducements held out to him, it must be shown that confessions made to the deputy sheriff and to the jailer were not only without inducements held out by them, but also that they were not induced by those held out to him by the sheriff, in order to justify their admissibility.
Id.—Sufficiency of Objections to Evidence—Motion to Strike Out.—Where the court refused to permit the defendant to show that confessions offered in evidence were made under promises of exemption from a heavy penalty, and overruled his objection that the state must show more than that no inducements were held out at a particular conversation, such rulings and exceptions were sufficient, without repetition, to cover ail confessions thereafter offered, and to justify a motion to strike out all evidence of confessions to various persons not shown to have been induced by representations which were proven to have been.held out by the sheriff.
HAYNES, C. Appellant was tried upon an information charging him with having stolen a cow, was found guilty, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state’s prison for the term of ten years.
Mr. Rice, the owner of the cow, testified that it was in the pasture on the 25th of February, 1898, and on the 26th'he found it in the slaughter-pen of Metcalf & Gehl, and that it was taken from the pasture and placed in the pen without his permission.
Mr. Baker testified that on the morning of the 26th he went to the pasture and found that the fence had been taken down, his cow taken out and the fence put up again, and saw the tracks of three cows and two horses which he followed to said slaughter-pen, and there found three cows, one of which was his and one Mr. Rice’s.
At this stage of the evidence the prosecution called Thomas B. Hicks, who testified that he was the jailer of the county jail, that he had known the defendant two years, and saw him at the jail on February 26th. He was then asked: “Did you hear him make any statement in regard to his guilt or innocence in this matter?” The defendant objected to the question, “and asked leave to introduce testimony to show that the admissions sought to he elieit-edwere made hythe defendant under promises of exemption, and that a lesser penalty would he imposed if he [523]pleaded guilty, and that the case was a foregone one against him.”
The court denied the motion, and the defendant excepted. The witness testified that the conversation was had in the district attorney’s office a short time after the defendant’s arrest. “There were two conversations at which I was present. There were four of us present the second time, Andreas Castro, Ed. Burke, and myself and my father. When you (the district attorney) took him to your office you simply asked him whether he did or not, and you never told him that you would help him, or you never made any threat to him; you asked him two or three times if he did the deed, and he set hack in his chair and kind of studied. There were not any inducements held out to him to answer. Q. Now, what did he say at that time?” The defendant objected to the question upon the ground that there was no sufficient basis for proving a confession; that he was imprisoned and under duress, and that the state must do something more than show that at this particular conversation no inducements were held out to him. This objection was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The witness then testified: “Mr. Storke then asked him if he knew anything about this cattle-stealing, and he hung back. No, he didn’t know; and finally he began to get uneasy in his chair, and finally says, ‘Yes, I do; my brother and I took the cows and drove them to the slaughterhouse.’ ”
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)