Court Opinion

ID: 9884568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:02:04.462895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:39.576691
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Underwood, Mr. Chief Justice Solfisburg, and Mr. Justice Schaefer, specially concurring: We agree that the judgment should be affirmed, but we believe the contention that it was error to deny the motion to suppress the oral confession should be .met in a manner different from that in the opinion of the court. That opinion states “The alleged confession consisted of statements by defendant to the police officers that there had been an accident, that she and her husband had had a disagreement over financial matters and that while he was in bed she stuck a knife in his chest.” The difficulty is that an objection was sustained to the only testimony in the record containing any reference to an “accident.” That testimony may not now be considered by us to transform into an admission (as to which the statute does not apply) the remaining portions of the statement which seem to us to constitute a confession. That it is a confession and that the list of witnesses present when the confession was made is incomplete does not, however, necessitate reversal. There is no contention that the statements were in any way coerced nor does defendant claim surprise. Her mother and brother were listed as witnesses present at the time the confession was made. They testified and were not questioned regarding the confession. Under these circumstances it seems clear that defendant was not prejudiced, and that it was not error to admit the evidence.