The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1877-12-06
WHY TT W.S DONE.


JUICE k6OOcIt ~ HheeCu VRtne
ion in the Case of the state vs.. l..
G.. Mortimer.
There has been considerable comment as
to the sentence OF l.. G. Mortimer and
10 settle Idrther controversy, we give below
Judge Ciozier's written
OPINION.
DistTse: Court Of LsouenVsTth County.
The State of Kansas
Vs. Burglary and Larceny.
L. G. Mortimer.
The defendant was charged in the inform
atom with burglary in The inst degree aud
grand Larceny. Upon the trlal IL was shown
that the house WAS entered anu the property
stolen, as alleged Ia the inlormailons The
officer who arrested tue defendant, testified,
that he made the arrest without a variant,
merely upon suspicion, and tnat he found
portions OF the sioien pIopeiry secieied IN
thee d'Ee.ent places. Tue county aito.Dty
Iben asked him a. ON whom he ob,aineu the
Informal ion which led 10 the discovery OF the
properly? Pending This quesiIoh, counsel
for the defenua I, asked ide witness what
promises, il any, we:e made the defendant
10 Induce him give nlofIllai ION OF toe place
wneIe the pfoprliy was concealed? In an
swer d ne witness, Ia substance. s,aied That lie
told the defendant that Al he would tell where
the property was concealed, he SHOULD not be
prosecuted; and also lead him a noe iron
the owner promising not 10 prosecute him II
he gave the desired Informal ion. Counsel Tor
the defendant then objected that the iDIorfna-
ton, If any we've given, was given under a
p oInise OF immunity, and that proof thereof
was incompetent. The objection was over
ruled and tue witness stated that the places
where lac fond he properly were Indicated
by the Defendant anu counsel for the defend
ant excepted
The jury returned verdict of guilty of bur-
giary IN the first degree and OF grand larceny.
Defendant moved for a new trial.
j. W. T,,g,Or for ite S'ase... T hos. r. FentonJor
DefedddHt.
which must follow his verdict, If permitted 10
stand has induced me 20 give The case TIE
fullest and most eaihest coosideia' ION OF
which l am capable The Dio'nun pun
islnent allowed by ,le statute IS Iucarcera-
ton in lie peIiiea.iaiy for eleven Yeas. II
l entertained a reasonable doubt OF HE cor
reciness Vi tue CONCLUSION at which l have
anived, il would not only be my duiy, but my
pleasure AS well, 10 give the defendant The
benefit thereof
The = ouud Ieiied upon for a new trial is
the supposed emo: OF Tue coat in peIDiitiag
iue officer 10 iesiIy that lie found the s,Olen
properly in pui saance of Information given
II M by The deieaualt under a pa om'ss OF i'm
muniiy nom p-osecG,Ion. IL Is claimed that
the statement vi re prisoner as 10 the whe: e.
abouis of ,De properly was 10 law a confess
sion, and that confession, was made u oder lie
clrcumsia ices Ie,eried 10, should beexcluded.
l agree with counsel mat Tue slatement was,
in substance, confession and WAS made in
consequence of p Omise OF immunlgy; but II
docs not necessarily follow tJat evidence
Evidence of confessions is excluded upon
Tie 2touDd that luey may been falsely made:
that, 10 realize hope held DOT, OF avert
nIeaiened iDluty, the accused may make an
untrue siaieinent, as the law books show
many Zines has been doue. But when the
luIn of the confession Is vindlcafed by ex-
uaueOuS facts, evidence OF lue Confession aud
the eXIitneous 1acts Is admissible. III, la ttie
case al ba,, notnIng Appeared but the naked
siaiemen OF the pa i>OOer hat lie knew where
Tue s.olea properly was seci eied, and that the
statement was made under a pIomse of i'm
muuily, the evidence would have been mad
mis>aole, because the truth of The. 5, aiemeut
u al not appeal. Or il "A search al The places
Indicated bad failed 10 discover Ihe IN issiDg
properly, sill, for the same reason, The evi-
deuce would not have been coW peuent- But
whed i,s l. uiaIuiness WAS established by a
discovery OF Tue properly at the places named,
evidence OF ine STATEMENT became competent
anu admissible
That such is the correct Iule, it seems 10 me,
caunot be consoles ed All open question
among the many au, no, ities tJat might DE
ciied in lis support a,e Inc following:
H,.c, OIL rs. the Ssate-Ye,grr- (1e.:a.) los:
IA. hou2h confessions Obtained by threats
or p! ON SEES are not evidence, ye, II ihey aie
, hat they are ue, ney Will be received as
les. imony; as where pai,y 'nns confess
ing, points Qua, OF tells where the stolen
pIOpeity is.
E,ick rs The Sole, . BoIrfngson, (Del.) SO:
COMMISSIONS not evidence il made I'M
de, promises of favor OF advantage, or
lhrea's OF injury or damage; but wbe,e the
confession leads 10 lie discovery OF Proper
ty, OF Produces a development OF fac,s which
PEE. Sc ptoye the en'!. of Inc party, they are
10 be cUnside, Ell by The ju.S."
DeathyidJe rs. The STATE, Saeed, (7ea..) 90:
sit WIS competent 10 p'ove that the
prisoner stated OF pointed out the liace
" here the gOocs might be found, ana mat
the goods Wee found at ihe place indca,.d
by "a m. That is ali of me COZ itssiou, in sucn
case, ldat Is Competent and Al becomes 80
only irOn the iact that lis nth is vindicited
by the discovery OF the goods"
BeIOte rs me SoGe, 90, Mss, 90:
The testimony pes United by the court 10 go
10 the JuIy, was sim ply. IN substance, that
the witness cda ged lie accused with stealing
the money, add nefeupOn the accused showed
The place wueie ii was concealed, and pl o.
iuced and delivered it 10 the witness IL Tue
money was lbe sane which WAS Stolen f,onI
the witness. Inc e cannot be doubt as 10 lac |
competency OF the ieSi Imony," and 10 the
same effect ATE Fl eti'IicG ice sio,e ). WeSt
Va. 6 oSid D'.gyrs. Tue Pe0,Jte, ~, " T., ;y,S
in The laiter OF which many cases are cited by |
he court.
Phil Ups on Erid@nce, Volume |, PogeJ5I.
Though a confession may have been OBJ |
tanned by undue inducements, Vet If, in con-
Sequence of the Information Obtained from |
TIE p. isoner, any fact relative 10 The the Of ]
en>e is biOught 10 light, such as the property 4
iolen- II u com p.teni TO give in evidence the
act that ihe p'opeity has been discovered /
with the pri>one. sinformatiOn. |
His statement as 10 his knowledge of the
place where the property is 10 be found, be-
ng coafii aied 10y the tact of the finding is !,
nus proved 10 be g. ue, and not TO have been
abrlcSled Iii consequence of any induce
neni- IL Is ompeient, therefore, TO inquire
whether lUe prisoner sia' ed that the properly
would be found by searching a particular
place, ana TO p,ove that II was found there"
eUidence, Vol l, Sec. 2;I
The object ct all The case winch, as We
nave now seen is taken 10 exclude confessions
which are not voluntary is 10 exclude fesii-
nony not - opably tue. But where, in con-
eQee"ce Of the Information 90; ind from tie
ms me-, the properly stolen, or the in
tfumeut OF the crime, o" the bloody
lotheS of the person murdered, 0, anu
'ber sodie'it fact is d:sHOcered, II
5 competent to show that such discov-
~ was made confOrmabiy To the intorma-
ion given by Tue prisoner. The statement
: 10 his knowledge OF the place where the
properly, or other evidence was 10 be found |
eing tnus confirmed by the fact, i<Dproved
D be true, and not 10 have been fabricated
n consequence of any inducement |
is competent, tbefefo.e to
inquire whether the prisoner stated that
he thing would be found by searching par
ocular place, nd TO prove that il was accord
hgly, so found; but il would not be cOmpe-
ent 10 inquire whether he had con essed that |
e had concealed 81 there"
Being of opinion that the court did not err
4 admitting The testimony complained Of
ne motion for new trial will be oven uled
nd judgment rendered against the de en-
ant.