Court Opinion

ID: 9673965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:21:18.676655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.018763
License: Public Domain

on appellant’s motion for rehearing.
MORRISON, Judge.
The question presented by this appeal is: Does the mere fact that a man is restrained, without a complaint having been filed against him or he having been taken before a magistrate, without a showing of any other irregularity, render inadmissible a confession secured from the accused during the period of such restraint?
Appellant contends that this should be answered in the affirmative and cites us several recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The rule as announced in McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, and as construed and interpreted in Upshaw v. United States, 335 U.S. 410, would seem to support him were it not for the fact that these cases were decided under Rule 5a which gives the Supreme Court supervisory control over rules of evidence in the inferior Federal courts and not on any constitutional grounds. As will be seen from the opinion in Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, this rule has no application to trials in state courts.
An affirmance of this case cannot be construed as a limitation of a prisoner’s right against compulsory self incrimination and his right to due process because the same are protected by the rule that no involuntary confession may be admitted. The facts of the arrest and imprisonment may bear heavily upon the question of whether the confession was voluntarily made, and if illegal restraint be shown to have induced the confession, it may be said as a matter of law that the same was not voluntarily made and is, therefore, inadmissible.
We are unable to agree that the facts here show that the confession was induced by illegal detention or restraint or that the same was not voluntarily made.
We heartily commend able counsel for his conscientious representation of his client, but we do not feel ourselves called upon to set aside a conviction in order to punish an arresting officer for failing to take appellant before a magistrate more promptly than was done. This opinion is not to be considered as condoning the practice of holding a prisoner for investigation.
*203Remaining convinced that our original dispostion of the matter was correct, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.