Opinion ID: 2162451
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Confession or Admission?

Text: The defendant contends that his alleged conversation with Wild and Smith constituted an admission and not a confession, and therefore the trial court erred in instructing the jury on confessions instead of on admissions against interest. We think that the defendant's statements to Wild and Smith constituted a confession and therefore the trial court properly so instructed the jury. In State v. Cartagena (1968), 40 Wis. 2d 213, 161 N. W. 2d 392, this court indicated that the distinction between a confession and an admission is that in the former there must be acknowledgment of guilt, while in the latter there is no such acknowledgment. `. . . A confession is a voluntary admission or declaration by a person of his agency or participation in a crime. . . . To make an admission or declaration a confession, it must in some way be an acknowledgment of guilt. . . .' Cartagena, supra, page 218. 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, p. 575, sec. 523, states the following: While a confession is an admission of guilt by a party charged with a crime, it is a special kind of admission. Although every confession is an admission, not every admission is a confession. There may be an admission of some fact in issue without its being an admission of guilt of the crime charged. A confession is an admission of the criminal act itself, not an admission of a fact or circumstance from which guilt may be inferred. . . . Thus, since the defendant admitted guilt in his statement to Wild and Smith, it constituted a confession and the trial court properly instructed the jury on confessions.