Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-12-27


fore court to : answer the change.
That be asked the defendant what he
had to- sayfst0 the charge and that
the defendant said che would answer
before q court or when It was, time
to make them.
This portion Of the testimony Of
the witness does not seem to have been
considered by cousel upon either side
in the presentation OF this case as
standing in different position from
the testimony relative to the stare
ments Of the complainant heretofore
referred to, made, without the pres
ence Of the defendant We think,
however, it presents a question worthy
of careful consideration of court and
counsel, but as it has not 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 ~ @4- & 44A 81
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 to
have been committed to Hawthorne.
That portion of the testimony of the
witness Wilson relative to the adj
mission is as follows:
This defendant was brought into
the car at place called Shurz bet
ween here and Reno with Mr.. Jones
and young lady, | afterwards found
to be Harry Averill, and they took pos
session of seat / 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-
I hind and got another lady which l
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 I
| ought to kill you. He assented. He
did yes. Well she says why 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
| stantialy to the same effect
| Counsel Tor petitioner say in their
brief:
"The testimony of Wilson and Jones
deputy sheriff, as to the admissions Of
| the defendant to his wife on a rail
road car after, his arrest are clearly
l inadmissible because there was no
\ proof that q crime had been commit
ted, and the corpus deficit cannot be
| established by the confession Of the
defendant" al - 9ea}
It will be conceded that sthe over
whelming weight Of authority, in this
| country is to the effect that an extra
1 judicial confession or admission CT
| prisoner, not corborafed by IN
dependent proof OF. the corpus deficit
will, not justify conyictiOn, II is loi
requisite. however. that : the crime
charged be conclusfvely establish cd
/ by evidence independent of the con
| fession or admission 1t is suficieni
if there be other, competent evidene
tending to establish the fact of the
commission of a crime.
In people vs. Bradley, Is Wend IN
4iY.) So, Nelson, C. j. said: "DMil
proof Of the body OF athe crime. the
corpus deficit, independently of the
confession is not required by any q!
the cases; and In many of them Sigh
corrohorating facts were held sufdci
ent,",, ana.s .l9oileg ~
| In the case OF. state vs. Hall. 81 w
Iva. sos the Court said: I'VE know
of no decisions anywhere that hold
the admissions OF the defendant are
not competent :eidence tending e
prove the corpus. deficit. Such admis
,sions may not be slificient proof i
the corpus deficit, but they certainl
are competent evidence tending u.
prove that the crime charged has bee
committed" .ss,.o f,,a Is i .,sa
Il In the case of Matthews VS. State, 5
Ala, 1877; % Am. Rep. 698, where man
authorities are cited and reviewed
;, the Court by Bricknell. c. ]. says
I Nor must we be understood as af1l
ming that the proof of the corpu
deficit must be as full and conclusiv
'. as would be essential if there wa
no confession to corroborate it. aEv
dence of facts and circumstances, a
.. tending the particular offense, an
! usually attending the commission {
similar offense-or of facts to tn
discovery Of which the confession hs
|, led, and which would not probabl
! have existed if the offense had nj
!: been committed-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
d roborate the confession. The weigl
!, which would be accorded them, whe
l. connected with the confession, Il
/ jury must determine, under proper i
d structions from the Court"
The case of People VS.. Simpson. 1
9 CAL 346, cited in petitioners bris
u is in line with the authorities abo'
quoted. The cburt in that case sa
= 1.-The term corpus deilctr means G
- ~k1xy ~rho& cmuA inrN1uoc n