Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-01-06

told the defendant that he would
place him under arrest to appear be-
fore a court to answer the charge.
That he asked the defendant what he
had to say to the charge and That
the defendant sald 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 cousel upon either side
in the presentation of this case as
standing in a 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 it presents question worthy
of careful consideration of court AMI
| counsel, but as it has not 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, c3n be sustained upon
| other portions of the testimony alone.
| the question will not now be deter
mined.
It is urged by counsel for petitioner
! that with the statements made by una
/ complainant excluded, there is 20
| competent proof CT the corpus deficit
I Two witnesses, c. q 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 -
! nave been COMMITTED 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
! weeE here and Reno with Mr.. Jones
and a young lady. I afterwards fou I'D
| to be Harry Averill, and they took pos
! session Of a seat | had occupied up
| to that time. took the seat across
the aisle. Seeing the man with
! bracelets on excited more or less cur
i 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
Y 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 I
ought to kill you. He asseated. 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 swoored 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 rail
road car after his arrest are clearly
inadmissibie because there was no
proof that a crime had been commit
ted, and the corpus ds!icti> cannot De
established by the confession Of the
defendant"
It will be conceded that the over.
{ whelming weight of authority in this
country is to the effect that an extra
judicial confession or admission OF
a prisoner not cOrbOrated by in
dependent proof of the corpus deficit
will not justify conviction. 1t is not
requisite, however that the crime
charged sbe conclusiveiy establish I'd
by evidence Independent of the con
fession or admission. It is sufficient
II there be other competent evldenc
tending to establish the fact of the
commission of a crime.
In people VS. Bradley Is Wend On
" So, Nelson, C. J. said: Full
proof of the body of the crime. the
corpus deucti, independently of the
confession is not required by any {.
the cases: and in many of them sligh-
corroborating facts were held suffici
emf"
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
i, pot competent eidenoe tending t,
prove the corpus deficit. Such ADM ;
, sons may not be sufficient proof !
the corpus deficit. but they certsini7
: are competent evidence tending
prove that the crime charged has beer
; committed
In the case of Mattheys VS. State .
Ala 1877: IS Am. Rep. 69S. where man,
authorities are cited and reviewed
the Court by Bricknell. c. j. says
Nor must we be understood as afr
ming that the proof Of the corpus
.elicti must be as full and cOnclusiv'
, as would be essential if there wa
no confession to correborate it. Evi
dence of facts and circumstances, a
tending the particular offense an
usually attending the commission 0
similar offense-or of facts to the
discovery of which the confession ma
I led, and which would not probabi!
have existed if the offense had no
: been committed-or CT facts having
! just tendency TO lead the min
: to the conclusion that the OF
+. Tense has been COMMITTEES
I would be admissible to col
/ roborate the confession. The weigh
/, which would be accorded them, whe
l. connected with the confession. tn
/ jury must determine, under proper Il
d structions from the Court
q The case Of People VS.. Simpson. II
d Cal. 34e, cited in petitioners brie
a is in line with the authorities aboy
o1Gted The court in that case Sa,