California Supreme Court, 1867

People v. Ah How

California Supreme Court · Decided July 1, 1867 · Sanderson

34 Cal. 218

Counsel

JEdwin A. Rogers, for Appellant, argued that the Court below erred in admitting under the defendant’s objection the evidence of witnesses Hill and Bourland of the defendant’s confessions of guilt, without first giving an opportunity to test their admissibility; and cited 1 Whar. Am. Or. L., Sec. 698; Rosc. Cr. Ev. 56. That the ■ confessions made by defendant were not admissible in evidence, because extorted by undue influence and by threats; and cited 1 Rosc. Cr. Ev. 38, 39; 1 Whar. Am. Cr. L., Secs. 685, 699; Arch. Cr. Pr. 413, 423., J. G. McCullough, Attorney-General, for the People, argued that from the record it appeared the confessions of defendant, given in evidence, although enforced, yet had led to the discovery of facts which showed their truth; and cited People v. Ah Ki, 20 Cal. 177; 1 Greenl. Ev., Secs. 131, 132; Com. v. Knapp, 9 Pick. 511: State v. Moore, 1 Haywood, N. C., 556; 1 Phil, on Ev., 4th Am. ed., 555, note 159; 2 B. & H. Lead. Cr. Cas. 219.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Sanderson, J.:

Whether a confession is admissible or not is a question for the Court to determine. Hence when the prosecution undertakes to prove a confession, and the defense objects upon the ground that the confession was involuntary, the Court must pass upon the objection before any testimony as to the confession is received. (1 Wharton Am. Grim Law, Sec. 698.) Whether the confession was voluntary, or made with that freedom which is necessary to make it admissible as evidence, is a question for the Court, and like all other questions touching the admission of evidence, must be decided before the testimony goes to the jury.

Both confessions—the first to Hill, the Constable, and the second to Hill, and Bourland the Sheriff—were made, as the ease clearly shows, under the influence of threats, and therefore inadmissible.

There was nothing in the confessions which led to the discovery of the stolen property, or any other, facts or circumstances by which their truth was established. Hence *224they do not fall within the rule in Ah Ki’s Case. (20 Cal. 179.)

Order denying a new trial reversed and a new trial granted.

Mr. Justice Rhodes expressed no opinion.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.