, 1906-07-02

by the learned court are, first, whether
or not a defendant may be convicted
upon the uncorroborated testimony of
an accomplice; i. e., whether one party
accused of a crime may be convicted of
that crime upon no evidence except
that given by another party who him.
self confesses to being a party to the
crime; and, second, whether or not ad.
missions against interest, made by the
defendant, + by law ~conclusively
presumed to be true, i. e., where GER
tain statements have been made by the
defendant, which tend to show he is
guilty OF the crime charged, must these
statements be taken by the jury as alb
solutely true, or may the jury itself
judge of the truth or falsity of these
statements?
Gives History of Case,
Judge Scott separately discusses
each instruction given by Judge Car.
penter, and objected to by defendants
counsel. He first gives a history of
the trial, and then takes up defendants
first objection, decided that it was
proper for the trial court t. allow the
admission of certain statements against
interest made by Clay. These state
ments were made by Clay to Burney
in Sheriff Reals office. They were,
Now, here, | was there, l was in on
the play but you are the man who done
it, Judge Scott held inasmuch as
these statements were made voluntari-
ly and without duress or hope of re-
ward, they had probative value and
were properly admitted. The court
decided that it is properly left to the
jury to decide from all the evidence
who is an accomplice.
Very P~erpIexing Question.
The learned judge next discusses
one of the most interesting and per-
picking questions involved in the case,
the one before mentioned, that is, may
the accused be convicted upon the un-
corroborated evidence of an accom-
plice? This question is, as yet, In
decided in this state, the court in this
case refusing to determine it on the
ground that not only vas there corrob-
Grating evidence, but that the defend
ant is in no position to complain, since
he himself had asked for and obtained
an instruction to practically the same
effect as the one complained of, hence
the court is under no necessity to deter
mine this question.
Reversal Based On instructions.
The court next considers instruc-
tons numbered Is and 16 and it is up
on the giving of these that the reversal
is based. These instructions were to
the effect that what the defendant said
against himself is by the law presumed
to be true, because against himself.
These instructions have reference to
the statements before mentioned, made
by Clay to Burney in Sheriff Reals of.
flee to the effect that he was present
and concerned in the murder. The eff
feet of these instructions was that if
the jury should find Clay did make
these statements it must then find
these statements as true against Clay,
the man who made them. The reason
Of these instructions is based upon the
inference that no man will make an
admission against his interests If it
be not true. These instructions had
been previously upheld by the Missouri
supreme court though there severely
criticised.
Do Not Lay Down Correct Rule.
But Judge Scott decides that these
instructions do not lay down the cor
rect rule of law on this subject. For
while, he says,t the law does admit these
admissions as proper evidence it does
not presume them to be true but rather
leaves it for the jury to decide whether
they be true or false and what value
they may have. He here cites numer.
GUS authorities and lays down the rule
that after a eliminating statement has
been introduced it is for the jury to de.
termine its credit and weight in con.
nection with all the facts and circum.
stances proved upon the trial. The
court says further, "Conceding the
statements were made they were but
e~videntiary facts and the defendant
was not concluded thereby.
The court by telling the jury that these
eliminating statements were presumed
to be true invaded the province of the
jury and fixed their weight"
Might Have Impaired Rights.
The judge then holds that these in