The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1885-02-24

Supreme Court Decision In
Hopkirk's Case.
The Day Set for His Exc.
ecution.
A Double Hanging at Clinton
March 20.

4 Jefferson City, Feb. 16.-(Special. =
State, respondent, VS.. Frank Hopkirk, ap-
pellant; appeal from Henry county Circuit
court
OPINION OF THE COURT.
The defendant, together with one Thorn al
Brown6eld, was indicted for the murder oI
one John E. Wells, in Henry county, on
Friday, the 29ih Of February, 1884.
The murder was committed at night, its
motive being robbery. A severance was
mad and each of the indicted parties was
accorded q separate trial, resulting Ia the
conviction and sentence of each. Many
points common to both cases we're passed
upon in Brownfeld's case, already decided,
- and consequently will not be further no
.foed.
y L. In relation to admitting certain per-
sons to form the panel of forty, from which
the petit jury was chosen, il is enough to
say that OF that number IN sc who were
objected 10 at the time the panel was being
formed and exceptions as TO their being
accepted, showed rome OF them had formed
their opinions except from minor talk in
the neighbour hood and newspaper reports );
they, therefore, do not come within The
rale laid dove in CUllar's case, decided
III
the panel from which The jury was after
wards chosen. As 10 HemphIlI, il is
claimed he was witness 10 BrowIfi.ld's
case, aud Sec. 1906, of the sta utes, is in
voked, which provides that 10 witness In
any criminal case saall be sworn as Juror
therein, If challenged. etc.
Tits section has no application TO
Hemphiil. He was not witness in the
y ause. knew nOthUg about it, and had
nly been summoned ss a witness on Brown
fields application for a change of venue,
but was now sworn.
As to Ogg, White, Noah and Rice, no
exceptions were saved as to their beng
placed on the pa e.. Ga this poiut, there
tore, the ruling must be against the defend
ant.
2 The admissibiiity OF the confessions
will now be considered In endeayoring TO
arrive at a correct conclus.on on this point,
considerable embarrassment has been eX-
perlenced In reading the evidence in conse-
quence OF the very poor fashion in which
this transcript has been made out capitals
and punctuation are for the most part
ignored, and WITNESSES are telescoped into
their seate aces in ter disregard of all
ordinary rules.
The preliminary question OF the admis-
sibliIty OF confess OPS, is one which belongs
alone to the trial courts, and unless ii be
u ade plain that error manifest mas been
Committed In this regard In decidil the
question OF fact - 10 whether these con-
lesSIOns were made ia ciro umstar ces which
for bid their heing received IN evide1ce CO.
ing TO the jury. Tn admi sion OF such
confessions cannot be held reversible error
by this court. State VS.. Paue:s N, % No.
$50
And the reason is obvious. Il is Just
like the determination Of any other pre-
lIminary question of fact by the court. as
for instaLce: An nppiic alton for a change
O. venue, where the testimony is
to pr JUDGE of the people, is con-
dieting. In all such cSses
the court seeing and healing the witness
obviously has better means of judging on
question of fact than an appellate iribun-I
where the witnesses are neither seen nor
heard, and where their testimony is often
pnglingly and imperfectly reported.
life VS. Conn. 29th Penn. statute, 429 In
passing upon the action OF The IrIaI
court and in refusing its rulings in this p r
ticular, it must be plainly made to appear
that the confession was induced hy the n a. !
terry of hope, or the torture of fear, tia the |
inducemf ut to the confession stood toward I
the confs ssOr 10 the relation % causs TO eff. |
feet. that some promise or threat was |
made which induced she confession ..ud /
prevented that confession from being what
Ethe hOrI;ies term voluntary"
| IL Is by no means necessary that the con-
fession be spontaneous, otherwise no con
Passion ever made would be receiy,-
BILE. Ii is only where the confession NAV |
fbe said 10 be extorted, dragged reluctantly
RON the breast OF the prisoner, through ex
biting his hopes or practicing ON his fears,
by some promise or some threat that the
fonfesslon subsequently made is inadmissi-
BE, aud mere adjatat:oa to spe. the
Ssth, no threats or prOmis IS being employ
4, or If IL be apparent that there was no
junction between the premise or threat
! nd the confession, or that trick or article
pr intoxicating liquors were used to induce
confession, the confession will not he re {
{ected. State vs.. Patterson, supra; Sta:e
Is. Phelrs. 74th Mo. l28: Simon VS.. state.
l4th Ala, $50
| In cases like the one at bar, The real ,
uestion as stated by Heating, it,, is beth
r there has been anythreat or promise OF !
kach a nature that the prisoner would be /!
kelly TO tell an untruth from fear of the
hreat or hope of profit from the promise. (
I. ,. Pearson, IL: Cox. {. G., 22S; f. S. j
ones, ill.,, 24i; lst Wharton, Or Law. Sec. q
81. {
After reading with attentive considera- q
on the testimony in this cause the con- h
usion reached by the trial court as to the 9
}52aissibility of the confession in the Jail at r
atom, appears to be fully warranted {
Among the reasons which may be pre-. I
ated favoring this conclusion are these: v
othing that occurred in the hotel in :
findsor In the nature of an admission or
lssi confession by the defendant was al O
wed BY the court TO the jury, and even o
IL had been so allowed, there is such q
Fnfict in the testimony as to what ac- d
ally occurred at that place as 10 leave il p
doubt whether The admission of that d