Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-12-31

that she said # Wa1 true. Iknt ~
told the defendant thnf he WoulA
place him under arrest 70 appear -
fore Z court to answer tho charge.
That be asked the defendant what he
had to say to tie charge ana thAt
the defendant sad ehe would anaVer
before . court or when It vas time
to make them,
This portion Of the testimony Of
the witness does not seem to have bean
considered BY cousel upon either side
In the presentation Of this case as
standing In q different position from
the testimony relative to the state-
ments Of the complainant heretofore
referred to. made without the pres
ence OF the defendant. We think.
however, 1t presents question worthy
of careful consideration Of court and
counsel, but as it has moi been pre-
scented in the briefs or arguments in
this matter, and as, in the view we
take of the case, the action of the
magistrate in holding the defendant
to answer, can be sustained upon
other portions of the testimony alone,
the question will not now be deter
mined.
1t is urged by counsel for petitioner
that with the statements made by the
complainant excluded. there is no
competent proof of the corpus deficit.
Two witnesses. C. o. Wilson and A.
N. Jones, the deputy sheriff, gave tes-
timOny relative to an admission
made by the defendant while he was
being taken upon the train from the
place where the offense is alleged 70
have been committed to Hawthorne.
That portion of the testimony of the
witness Wilson relative to the ad-
mission is as follows:
"This defendant was brought into
ween here and Reno with Mr.. Jones
and young lady, afterwards found
to be Harry Averill and they took pos.
session of seat l had occupied up
to that time. l took the seat across
the aisle. Seeing the man with
bracelets on excited more or less cur
iosity and when he came into the car
the young lady went in the car be-
hind and got another lady which I
learned was her mother The mother
came in and was talking to the de-
PENDANT. The mother asked him what
made him do it. The defendant SAYS
l don't know. The mother was hys-
terical and she made the remark /
ought to kill you. He assented. He
did yes. Well she says whv don't
do it and repeated the remark several
times and about that time she tainted
and swoOned away
The testimony of the deputy sheriff
relative to this admission, was sub.
stantialv to the same effect.
Counsel LOT petitioner say in their
brief:
"The testimony of Wilson and Jones,
deputy sheriff, as to the admissions OF
the defendant to his wife on rail
road car after his arrest are clearly
inadmissible because there was no
proof that : crime had been commit
ted, and the corpus deficit cannot be
established by, the confession of the
defendant"
It will be conceded that the over
wheiming weight of authority in this
country is to the effect that an extra
judicial confession or admission CT
a prisoner, not corborated by an
dependent proof of the corpus deficit,
will not justify conviction. It is not
requisite. however. that the crime
charged be conclusively established
by evidence independent Of the con.
fession or admission. 1t is sufficient
if there be other competent evIdenc
tending to establish the fact of the
commission of crime
In people vs.. Bradley, 16 Wend. IN
Y.) So, Nelson, c. j. said: Full
proof of the body of the crime, the
corpus dencti, independently of the
confession is not required by any II
the cases; and in manv of them slight
corroborating facts were held suffici
emit"
In the case of state VS. Hall, 81 w
Va. sos the Court said: 1--WE know
of no decisions anywhere that hold
the admissions of the defendant are
not competent eidence tending to
prove the corpus deficit. Such admis
sicns may not be sufficient proof i
the corpus deficit, but they certainl,
are competent evidence tending u
prove that the crime charged has beer
committed"
In the case of Matthews VS. State. 81
Ala, 1877; % Am. Rep. sos, where man.
authorities are cited and reviewed
the Court by Bricknell G. j. saws
j '.Nor must we be understood as afr
| ming that the proof Of the corpus
! Seicti must be as full and conclusiv
as would be essential if there wa
| no confession to corroborate it. Ev
| dence Of facts and circumstances, a
/ tending the particular offense, an;
| usually attending the commission Q
/ similar offense-or of facts to tn
! discovery Of which the confession ha
led, and which would not prcbabt
have existed if the offense had ne
been comnitted-or Of facts having
! just tendency to lead the min
| to the conclusion that the O
tense has been committe
would be admissible to co
roborate the confession. The weigh
which would be accorded them, whe
connected with the confession. II
jury must determine, under proper i
structions from the Court"
The case of People VS.. Simpson, L
Cal. 346, cited in petitioners bria
is in line with the authorities abo'