Opinion ID: 883450
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the District Court err in instructing the jury as to admissions and confessions?

Text: Craig asserts that the District Court improperly instructed the jury on admissions and confessions by giving Jury Instruction No. 7. Jury Instruction No. 7 states: A statement made by a defendant other than at this trial may be an admission or a confession. A confession, as applied in criminal law, is a statement by a person made after the offense was committed that he committed or participated in the commission of a crime. An admission is a statement made by the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue, and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt. A conviction cannot be based on an admission or confession alone. The circumstances under which the statement was made may be considered in determining its credibility or weight. You are the exclusive judges as to whether an admission or a confession was made by the defendant, and if so, whether such statement is true in whole or in part. If you should find that any such statement is entirely untrue, you must reject it. If you find it is true in part, you may consider that part which you find to be true. Evidence of an oral admission or oral confession of the defendant should be viewed with caution. Craig alleges that he made neither a confession, nor an admission. Craig's statements in question were made to Detective Green after the robbery. When questioned by Detective Green about the robbery, Craig stated: I want it to be known that I did not have a gun. He also told Detective Green that he could not make it in the outside world. In State v. Thompson , we stated: An `admission' is defined as an avowal or acknowledgement of a fact or of circumstances from which, together with other facts, guilt may be inferred.... An admission does not acknowledge guilt; rather, it tends to establish guilt. State v. Thompson (1993), 263 Mont. 17, 25, 865 P.2d 1125, 1130 (citing State v. Goltz (1982), 197 Mont. 361, 369, 642 P.2d 1079, 1084 (other citations omitted)). Thompson argued that the court erred in characterizing statements he made at his omnibus hearing as admissions and erred in charging the jury with the same instruction that was used in the present case. This Court concluded that Thompson's statement was inconsistent with his theory of innocence and that the district court was correct in instructing the jury on possible admissions. In the present case, the District Court correctly presented the jury with the instruction concerning admissions and confessions. Although Craig questions whether his statements were admissions or confessions, the jury may have construed them as inconsistent with innocence and thus treated them as admissions. Accordingly, the court properly apprised the jury of the difference between an admission and a confession; instructed the jury that a conviction cannot be based on an admission or confession alone; informed the jury that it alone was to determine if an admission had been made; and advised the jury that an admission should be viewed with caution. This instruction was to Craig's benefit. It ensured that the jury did not overvalue Craig's statements. This Court will uphold a district court if the instructions given, viewed as a whole, fully and fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case. Thompson, 865 P.2d at 1131 (citing State v. Lundblade (1981), 191 Mont. 526, 529, 625 P.2d 545, 548). The instruction given by the District Court is a correct statement of the law, therefore, we hold that the District Court did not err in instructing the jury on the law applicable to admissions. Affirmed. TURNAGE, C.J., and NELSON, ERDMANN and TRIEWEILER, JJ., concur.