Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-01-05

pidCC .nlm -uAuCls, ~ dppCuA w
fore court to answer the charge.
That he asked the defendant what he
had to say to the charge and that
the defendant SAID che would answer
before p 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 consel upon either side
IN the presentation of this case as
standing in a different position from
the testimony relative to the stare
nlents Of the complainant heretofore
referred to, made without the pres
ence of the defendant We think.
however, it presents question worthy
lc careful consideration of court and
counsel. but as it has not been pre-
scented in the briefs or arguments in
his matter, and as, in the view we
take of the case, the action Of the
magistrate in holding the defendant
10 answer, can be sustained upon
other portions of the testimony alone,
he question will not now be deter
mined
It is urged by counsel for petitioner
that with the statements made by the
compliment excluded. there. is 10
competent proof Of the corpus deIcti.
Two witnesses, c. O. Wilson and g.
n. Jones, the deputy sheriff, gave tes-
tinOny relative to an admission
made by the defendant while he was
being taken upon the train from the
Place where the offense is alleged .
nave been comml,ted to Hawthorne
That portion Of the testimony of the
witness wilson relative to the ld-
mission is as follows:
This defendant was brought into
the car at place called Shurz bet
ween here and Reno with Mr.. Jones
and q Young lady I afterwards fOund
"a be Harry Averill and they took pos
session # a seat | had occupied uD
to that tine. | 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
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 why don't I
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
Stantiaiy 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
inadmissible because there was no
proof that crime had been commit
ted, and the corpus deficit cannot De
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 Of
dependent proof Of the corpus deficit,
will not justify conviction. 1t 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 ev1denc
tending to establish tho fact Of the
commission of crime.
In people vs. Bradley Is Wead On
W So, Nelson, c.. ]. said: Full
proof Of the body of tho crime. the
corpus dencti, independently Of the
confession is not required by any Of
the cases; and in many Of them slight
corroborating facts were held sufici
| emit -.r
In the case Of state vs. Hall. 81 w
Va. sos the Court said: Eve know
! of no decisions anywhere that hold
! the admissions Of the defendant are
! not competent eidence tending TO
prove the corpus deficit. Such admis
sions may not be sufficient proof 4
| the corpus deficit. but they certainly
| are competent evidence tending -
| prove that the crime charged has beer
| committed"
In the case of Matthews vs State, IS
! Ala, 1877; % Am Rep. SSS, where many
! the Court by Bricknell, c. J. says:
Nor must We be understood as affir-
ming that the proof Of the corpus
| CCttCtI must De dS iuli anu CUuCiuSiVe
| as would be essential if there was
| no confession to corroborate it. Evi
dence of facts and circumstances, a.
| tending the particular offense, an1
| usually attending the commission Of
similar offense-or Of facts to the
| discovery of which the confession has
led, and which would not probably
: have existed if the offense had no
been committed-or of facts having :
Just tendency to lead the miuG
to the conclusion that the OF
Tense has been committed
would be admissible to cor
roborate the confession. The weigh
which would be accorded them, whe1
connected with the confession. tn
jury must determine, under proper ir
structions from the Court"
The case of People VS.. Simpson. 10
Cal. SAG, cited in petitioners brie
is in line with the authorities abov
quoted The court in that case say
: ~ ne term CORPUS delicti' means G,