Love v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Wilson, Circuit Judge. When a prior confession is proved to have been obtained .by improper means and influences, all subsequent confessions are deemed subject to the same influence, unless it is clearly shown to have been removed. Wheeler's Am. Cr. Law 257 ; Russ, on Cr. 832-3-4 ; State vs. Guild, 5 Halst. 163, 179 to 182 ; 1 Greenf.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Wilson, Circuit Judge. When a prior confession is proved to have been obtained .by improper means and influences, all subsequent confessions are deemed subject to the same influence, unless it is clearly shown to have been removed. Wheeler's Am. Cr. Law 257 ; Russ, on Cr. 832-3-4 ; State vs. Guild, 5 Halst. 163, 179 to 182 ; 1 Greenf. Ev. 282. Whether a confession is voluntary or not is a question of law for the court, not of fact for the jury to determine. Hector vs. State, 2 Mo. 135; Knapp's case, 10 Pick. 495 ; Am. Cr. Law 258 ; Russ, on Cr.…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Fairchild
Without any discussion it may be taken to be the general rule, and well settled by the authorities, that no confession of a crime can be given in evidence against a defendant, unless it was freely and voluntarily made, and that such must be shown to be the character of the confession, before the prosecution can use it as evidence. 1 Grecnleaf’s Ev. sec. 219; The State vs. Guild, 5 Halst. 180; 1 Ph. Ev. (4th Am. Ed.) 542. Where confessions have been made under the influence of threats or pro' mises, and are, therefore, inadmissible in evidence, it is often to be ascertained, whether subsequent…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
- Moore v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1958
- Woodard v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1977
- Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Vaughan v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.