¶1There is no evidence to support the verdict of the jury in this case, save the confession of the defendants that they were guilty as charged of burning the barn, which confession was caused to be made by hanging the defendants and threatening their lives unless they would confess. This evidence, thus obtained, was incompetent, and should not have been allowed, For want of evidence the judgment is reversed, the confession of error by the attorney general is sustained, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
72 Ark. 585
Edmonson v. State
Decided July 2, 1904
Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1904-07-02
Joed D. Conway, Judge. If the confession is fairly traceable to the prohibited influence, the trial judge should exclude it. 50 Ark. 307; 66 Ark. 506; 70 Ark. 24. Evidence upon which confessions were admitted will be reviewed. 22 Ark. 336; 69 Ark. 506; 70 Ark. 24. The confession should have been excluded. 66 Ark. 64; 69 Ark. 599. The testimony taken in the examining court should have been excluded. Sand. & H. Dig. § 2230.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1974
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1904-07-02
View the full empirical analysis of this case →