A confession by a prisoner who had been confined for several days in a sweat box is not admissible against him, though no threats nor coercion were used, nor any inducements held out to him ; Ammons v. State, 80 Miss. 592, 32 South. 9, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 768, 92 Am. St. Rep. 607. Such sweat box pro cedure is unlawful ; Flagg v. People, Mich. 706.
Where the accused was taken.to the office of the chief of police, and in the presence of several deputies, detectives and newspa per men, for an hour to an hour and a half, was closely questioned by those present un til he was very much broken down, being very weak but "not quite collapsed," and in this condition he confessed, such confession was held involuntary and inadmissible ; Gal laher v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 296, 50 S. W. 388.
In 31 Ont. Rep. 14, it is said that as to statements made by persons accused, while in custody, in response to questions put by an officer in charge, the judges have regarded the matter from three points of view. First, there are those who consider the practice so reprehensible that any statement so obtained should not be given in evidence. Others, that while the practice of interrogation is undesirable and not to be encouraged, yet the answer so obtained could not be rejected as evidence. The third class held that such an investigation might be so conducted as to be useful and even desirable in the furtherance of justice.
That the confession was drawn out by the questions of a police officer will not render it inadmissible ; Bram v. U. S., 168 U. S. 532, 18 Sup. Ct. 183, 42 L. Ed. 568 ; Com. v. Storti, 177 Mass. 339, 58 N. E. 1021; Com. v. Williams, 171 Mass. 461, 50 N. E. 1035 ; State v. Phelps, 74 Mo. 128. In State v. Brinte, 4 Pennewill (Del.) 551, 58 Atl. 258, an objection was made that such a confession was involuntary under the 5th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, but it was held that this applies to judicial examinations, not to extra-judicial confessions ; so in (1893) 2 Q. B. 12.
The prisoner's confession, when the corpus delicti is not otherwise proved, is insufficient to warrant his conviction ; State v. Guild, 10 N. J. L. 163, 185, 18 Am. Dec. 404 ; Keith
ler v. State, 10 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 229 ; Flower v. U. S., 116 Fed. 241, 53 L. Ed. 271; Bergen v. People, 17 Ill. 426, 65 Am. Dec. 672. See, contra, Russ. & R. 481, 509 ; 1 Leach 311; People v. Rulloff, 3 Park. Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 401; Stephen v. State, 11 Ga. 225.
Whether a confession is voluntary is held to be primarily for the court to determine ; State v. Hernia, 08 N. J. L. 299, 53 Atl. 85 ; State v. Burgwyn, 87 N. C. 572; Hunter v. State, 74 Miss. 515, 21 South. 305 ; Smith v. Com., 10 Gratt. (Va.) 734; Brown v. State, 124 Ala. 76, 27 South. 250; Murray v. State, 25 Fla. 528, 6 South. 498 ; State v. Gorham, 67 Vt. 365, 31 Atl. 845 ; State v. Sherman, 35 Mont. 512, 90 Pac. 981, 119 Am. St. Rep. 869 ; Com. v. Howe, 132 Mass. 250 ; State v. Stebbins, 188 Mo. 387, 87 S. W. 460 ; People v. White, 176 N. Y. 331, 68 N. E. 630 ; Com. v. Johnson, 217 Pa. 77, 66 Atl. 233 ; Hintz v. State, 125 Wis. 405, 104 N. W. 110 ; other cases hold that, on conflicting evidence, it is for the jury ; Burdge v. State, 53 Ohio St. 512, 42 N. E. 594; People v. Cassidy, 133 N. Y. 612, 30 N. E. 1003; Cora. v. Sheu, 190 Pa. 23, 42 Atl. 377 ; Corn. v. Burrough, 162 Mass. 513, 39 N. E. 184 ; v. Robinson, 86 Mich. 415, 49 N. W. 260; State v. Steb bins, 188 Mo. 387, 87 S. W. 460 ; State v. Moore, 160 Mo. 443, 61 S. W. 199; Com. v. Epps, 193 Pa. 512, 44 Atl. 570; People v. Oliveria, 127 Ca]. 377, 59 Pac. 772.
When there is a conflict of evidence as to whether a Confession is or is not voluntary, if the court decides that it is admissible, the question may be ]eft to the jury, with the direction that they shall reject the confes sion if, upon the whole evidence, they are satisfied it was not the voluntary act of the defendant ; Wilson v. U. S., 162 U. S. 613, 16 Sup. Ct. 895, 40 L. Ed. 1090, followed in Roesel v. State, 62 N. J. L. 216, 41 AU. 408; Burdge v. State, 53 Ohio St. 512, 42 N. E. 594 ; Hardy v. U. S., 3 App. D. C. 35 ; Com. v. Preece, 140 Mass. 276, 5 N. E. 494.
Consult Greenleaf ; Wigmore; Phillipps, Evidence ; Wharton, Criminal Evidence ; Roscoe, Crim. Ey.; Joy, Confessions ; 1 Ben nett & H. Lead. Cr. Cas. 112. See Auras SIONS.