CONFESSION. In Criminal Law. The voluntary admission or declaration made by a person who has committed a crime or mis demeanor, to another, of the agency or par ticipation which he had in the same. Peo ple v. Parton, 49 Cal. 632 ; State v. Novak, 109 Ia. 717, 79 N. W. 465.
Judicial confessions are those made before a magistrate or in court in the due course of legal proceedings.• Extra-jucticial confessions aro those made by the party elsewhere than before a magis trate or in open court.
Voluntary confessions are admissible in evidence ; Rafe v. State, 20 Ga. 60; Hamil ton v. State, 3 Ind. 552 ; Dick v. State, 30 Miss. 593 ; Craig v. State, 30 Tex. App. 619, 18 S. W. 297; McQueen v. State, 94 Ala. 50, 10 South. 433 ; State v. Coella, 3 Wash. 99, 28 Pac. 28 ; Wigginton v. Com., 92 Ky. 282, 17 S. W. 634 ; People v. Taylor, 93 Mich. 638, 53 N. W. 777 ; People v. Goldenson, 76 Cal. 328, 19 Pac. 161; Anderson v. State, 25 Neb. 555, 41 N. W. 357 ; State v. Demareste, 41 La. Ann. 617, 6 South. 136; Com. v. Culver, 126 Mass. 464; but a confession is not admis sible in evidence where it is obtained by tem poral inducement,. by threats, promise or I hope of favor held out to the party in respect of his escape from the charge against him, by a person in authority ; 4 O. & P. 570; State v. York, 37 N. H. 175 ; Simon v. State, 5 Fla. 285; Smith v. State, 10 Ind. 106; Smith v. Corn., 10 Gratt. (Va.) 734; Flagg v. People, 40 Mich. 706 ; Joe v. State, 38 Ala. 422 ; Earp v. State, 55 Ga. 136; Garrard v. State, 50 Miss. 147 ; Territory v. MeClin, 1 Mont. 394 ; Beery v. 17. S., 2 Col. 186; State v. Carr, 37 Vt. 191; Laros v. Com., 84 Pa. 200 ; see People v. Rogers, 18 N. Y. 9, Am. Dec. 484 ; Com. v. Cuffee, 108 Mass. 2h; State v. Day, 55 Vt. 510; State v. De Graff, 113 N. C. 688, 18 S. E. 507 ; or where there Is reason to presume that such person appear ed to the party to sanction such threat or in ducement ; 5 C. & P. 539 ; 2 Crawf. & D. 347 ; State v. Roberts, 12 N. C. 259.
To make an admission or a declaration a confession, it must, in some way, have been an acknowledgment of guilt, and have been so intended, for it must have been volun tary ; State v. Novak, 109 Ia. 717, 79 N. W. 465; People 49 Cal. 632. Volun tary does not in such cases mean spontane ous ; Levison v. State, 54 Ala. 520 ; Roesel v. State, 62 N. J. L. 216, 41 Atl. 408. There are three kinds: (1) A confession in open court of the prisoner's guilt, which is con clusive and renders any proof unnecessary.
(2) The next highest kind confession is that made before a magistrate. (3) The lowest is that which is made to any other person, and requires to be sustained by proof of corroborating circumstances ; Garrard v. State, 50 Miss. 147.
The distinction between a confession and a statement or declaration is recognized both by courts and text-writers. A confession in a legal sense is restricted to an acknowledg ment of guilt made by a person after an of fense has been committed and does not apply to a mere statement or declaration of an in dependent fact from which such guilt may be inferred ; State v. Campbell, 73 Kan. 688, 85 Pac. 784, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 533, 9 Ann. Cas. 1203 ; State v. Reinhart, 26 Or. 466, 38 Pac. 822 ; People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 61 N. E. 286, 62 L. R. A. 193.
Where a defendant attended an inquest in obedience to a subpcena and testified un der a threat of punishment for contempt if he refused, his testimony was held admissi ble, though he was not advised of his rights when it was given ; it being shown that he was not under arrest or formally accused of crime; People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 61 N. E. 286, 62 L. R. A. 193. To the same effect, Taylor v. State, 37 Neb. 788, 56 N. W. 623 ; People v. Mondon, 103 N. Y. 211, 8 N. E. 496, 57 Am. Rep. 709 ; People v. Chap lean, 121 N. Y. 266, 24 N. E. 469 ; Wilson v. State, 110 Ala. 1, 20 South. 415, 55 Am. St. Rep. 17; State v. Coffee, 56 Conn. 399, 16 Atl. 151; People v. Hickman, 113 Cal. 80, 45 Pac. 175 ; People v.- Parton, 49 Cal. 632. The inducement must be held out by a person in authority ; Com. v. Tuckerman, 10 Gray (Mass.) 173 ; but see 4 C. & P. 570 ; other wise the confession is admissible ; 1 C. & P. 97, 129; State v. Gossett, 9 Rich. (S. C.) 428; Shiffiet v. Com., 14 Gratt. (Va.) 652 ; Com. v. Sego, 125 Mass. 210 ; Cady v. State, 44 Miss. 332; Ulrich v. People, 39 Mich. 245; but see Spears v. State, 2 Ohio St. 583; or if the in ducement be spiritual merely ; 1 Mood. 197 ; Jebb, Ir. 15 ; Com. v. Drake, 15 Mass. 161; Fouts v. State; 8 Ohio St. 98 ; or an appeal to the party to speak the truth ; L. R. 1 C. C. 362; Cady v. State, 44 Miss. 333 ; Huffman v. State, 130 Ala. 89, 30 South. 394; State v. General Armstrong, 167 Mo. 267, 66 S. W.