The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-04-03
NO new TRIAL
FOR JACOBS.
Appellate Court Has Denied the
Petition Filed by Him.
DECISION AN IMPORTANT ONE.
Consideration Of Confession by the Jury Held
TO Have Been Proper
TRIAL JUSTICES CHARGE SUSTAINED
Contention Of Defence That Corpus Deficit Must
Be Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt Apart
TRIAL JUSTICES CHARGE SUSTAINED
Contention Of Defence That Corpus Deficit Must
Be Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt Apart
From Any Confession, Not Upheld.

The Appellate Court has denied de-
fendant's petition for new trial In the
case of State VS.. Nathaniel i. Jacobs.
Jacobs was indicted for rape and found
guilty by a jury i'm the Common Pleas
Division and a petition for new trial
was filed and argued; the main point
OF the appeal benig that the justice
who charged the jury erred I'm instruct
ing the jury about a certain confess
sion.
Judge Tlllinghast, who wrote the
opinion, said: The evidence offered ole
the part OF the prosecution included an
alleged confession by the defendant OF
the commission OF the crime. and the
main question of law which is raised ia
whether the instruction relating there
TO, as finally given by the court, in
reply TO a question by the jury, was
correct The question and reply were
as follows: The foreman-We would
like TO know whether we can use the
confession made by the defendant ID
connection with other evidence 10 es-
tablish the commission OF the crime!
"The court-Yes, sir. Confessions arc
made by parties presumably under
standing what they say. III II Is con-
tended that they do not so understand,
then you should weigh all the circum-
stances surrounding the alleged con-
fession. When a party stands peiore
the court and pleads guilty II is taken
as a confession, and If the court mas
Jurisdiction they proceed at once 10
sentence. II they have no Jurisdictioh'
frequently the mere fact of the confess
sion having been made Is put in eVi-
dence here TO affect the question oi
the guilt OF innocence OF the party
Whatever the party defendant volun-
tarily said. whatever he stated In re-
sponse TO any questions, II there was
no threat TO compel him to do IL and
no hope held out as TO his escaping or
getting off with lighter punishment,
If there was nothing of that kind done.
then you have a right to weigh the
confession or alleged confession, AND
if that with the other testimony would
establish the guilt of the defendant be-
yond a reasonable doubt your duty q
TO use il for what it is worth and find
a verdict accordingly.
"The defendants counsel excepted L.
this instruction. He contends that thC
corpus delicti must be proved beyond
a reasonable doubt Independently and
apart from any confession made by thc
0erpn0d1l-lndl
confession cannot be considered by the
jury as in any degree tending to prove
the body of the crime. We think this
contention is untenable and that the
instruction given by the court wan
substantially correct
1T is doubtless well setted. in the
United States at any rate. that extra
judicial confessions OF defendant in
a criminal case, without other evil
dence of the fact that a crime has been
committed are insufficient to warrant
"a conviction But while this ~
so. fun proof of the body of the crime
the corpus icti-independently Of
the confession, is not required by anv
of the cases; and i'm many Of them
slight corroborating facts were held
sufficient People VS.. Badgley. is Wend.
80. In order To warrant conviction
In a given cause, ft must be shown
that a crime has been committed, and
that the person charged herewith was
the active agent in the commission
thereof But while II is necessary that
both of said essential facts should he
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. il
does not follow that each must ba
proved Independently of and apart from
the other. or that either must be proves
independently Of and without regarding
the confession Of the person charged
with the crime. The confession is evil
dence tending TO prove both the fact
that the crime was committed and the
defendants agency therein. State VS.
Hall 81 West Va. 500. But II is not
sufficient Of itself TO prove the former
and without evidence aliunde OF facts
also tending 20 prove the corpus delicti
II Is not enough 10 warrant q convic.
ton. There must be such extrinsic
corroborative evidence as well, when
taken I'm connection with the confes-
sion. establish this fact i'm the minds
OF the jury beyond n reasonable doubt.
"In the case before us there IL evi-
dence. both direct and circumstantial
outside of the confession OF the defend
ant. strongly tending TO prove the crime
I'm question was committed. and also
that the defendant was the person who
committed IL. And we think n Is W
such n character. taken i'm connection
with the evidence Of the defendants
confession. as 10 warrant the jury IN
fnding verdict of guilty.
eve have carefully examined tho au.
thorities cited by the defendants coun.
gel I'm support Of this contention. and
we find that they not only do not sus.
tain the position taken by him. but
on the contrary are all In substantial
harmony with the doctrine above an
81