Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-12-24


place him under arrest to appear be-
That : aslked the ,cfendnnt what he
had TO say to the charge and that
the defendant said .she would answer
before. r court or when 1t 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 q different position from
the testimony relative to the stare
ments Of the C0mpl ainRnt heretofore
referred to, made without the pres
ence of the defendant. We fhin.y
however, it presents a question worthy
of careful consideration of court and
counsel, but as It has mot been PR
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.
| NJ 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 20
have been committed to Hawthorne
| That portion of the testimony OF the
witness Wilson relative to the i'd
mission is as follows:
This defendant was brought into
| the car at a place called Shurz bet
/. wsen here and Reno with Mr.. Jones
and young lady, afterwards found
| TIC be Harry Averill. end they took pos.
session of seat had occupied III
| to that time. l took the seat across
| the aisle. Seeing the man with
1 bracelets on excited more or less cur
{ icsity and when he came into the car
| the young lady went in the car be-
hind and got another lady which
! 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 saws
/ 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 severa
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 Tor petitioner say in their
brief:
The testimony of Wilson and Jones
/; deputy sheriff. as to the admissions Of
j the defendant TO his wife on a rail
road car after his arrest are clearly
4 inadmissibie because there was nc
proof that a crime had been commit
ted. and the corcus deficit cannot be
established by the confession OF the
/ defendant"
whelming weight Of authority in this
| country is to the effect that an extra
judicial confession or admission CT
+ q prisoner, not .corborated by iu-
dependent proof OF the eorpue deficit,
will not Justify conviction. It is mol
requisite, however, that the crime
| charged be conclusively establish sd
by evidence independent Of the CON
fession or admission. It is sufhciep,
If there be other competent evldens
tending to establish the fact u the
commission of a crime.
In people VS.. Bradley, 16 Wend IN
EY.) So, Nelson. c. ]. said: "Fuil
proof OF the body Of the crime, tbs
! corpus dencti, independently 81 the
confession is not required by any &!
the cases: and in MANY of them slight
corroborating facts were. held sufici
ent."
In the case Of state VS. Hall. 81 w
Va. sos the Court said: I'VE. know
of no decisions anywhere that hold
the admissions of the defendant are
not competent eidence tending t6
prove the corpus deiicti.a Such admis
sions may not be sufficient proof j
the corpus deficit, but they certainl.
! are competent evidence tending
prove that the crime charged has beef
committed" M 9
In the case of Matthews vs State. 5
Ala. 49,; % Am. Rep. 698. where man
authorities are cited and reviewed
the Court by Bricknell. G. lJ.5-says
Nor must we be understood as afr
ming that the proof CT the corp,l
'elicti must be as full and conclusiv
, as would be essential if there We
. no confession to corrobOrate it. Ev
, , dence of facts and circumstances, i
! tending the particular offense. an
: usually attending the commission {
similar offense-or of facts to tn
discovery Of which the confession hs
!, led, ard which would not probabi
have existed if the offense had nj
!. been committed-or CT facts having
! Just tendency to lead the min
: to the conclusion that the o
Tense has been committe
+ would be admissible to CO
4 rcborate the confession. The weigi
|, which would be accorded them, whe
/ connected with the confession, tt
{ jury must determine. under proper i
q structiops from the Court"
The case of People VS. Simpson. 1
CAL BAG, cited in petitioners bris
u is in line with the authorities abo'
quoted The court in that case sa
! zine term corpus deficit, means &