Summary
This Oregon Supreme Court decision addresses the sufficiency of a murder indictment, the admissibility of evidence regarding weapons and money found in the defendant's possession, and the voluntariness of the defendant's confessions. The court upheld the indictment and the admission of physical evidence as relevant to intent and motive. However, it reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial because subsequent confessions were obtained under the continuing influence of improper inducements from law enforcement officers during custody.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an indictment charging murder in its factual allegations, but not specifying the degree in its caption, was sufficient under Oregon law.
- Whether evidence that the defendant possessed two recently acquired and concealed guns, including one taken from the deceased, and money resembling the deceased's money was relevant and admissible even though it also tended to show collateral offenses.
- Whether a confession induced by a custodial officer's promise or suggestion of benefit was inadmissible under Oregon law.
- Whether subsequent confessions made while the defendant remained in custody on the same charge were admissible when the original improper influence had not ceased, had not been withdrawn, and no warning had been given.
Holdings
- An indictment is sufficient when its factual allegations clearly charge murder in the first degree, even if the caption or introductory portion states the crime as murder without specifying the degree.
- Evidence that the defendant possessed recently acquired or concealed instruments capable of being used in the charged crime, including an instrument belonging to the deceased, and evidence that the defendant possessed money connected to the deceased, was relevant and admissible to show preparation, intent, identity or connection to the crime, and motive, even if the evidence also tended incidentally to show collateral offenses.
- A confession made by a prisoner in custody after a public officer tells him that it would be better to tell the whole thing is induced by an improper influence of hope and is inadmissible.
- A subsequent confession made while the defendant remains in custody on the same charge must be excluded unless the prosecution shows facts or circumstances supporting a fair inference that the influence that induced the original confession had ceased to operate.
Key quotations
“Upon the whole we are satisfied that our statute is wholly affirmative and that the common law rules, governing the admissibility of confessions are still in force in this state.” (at 162)
“The circuit court had the undoubted right to try the question whether the original influence had ceased when the subsequent confessions were made” (at 165)
Factual background
Jacob Swanger was killed in Washington County, Oregon, on January 8, 1880. Shortly before the murder, Wintzingerode had obtained two guns, which were later found concealed in the straw under the head of his bed; one gun belonged to Swanger and had been taken from Swanger's house. Witnesses also testified that Wintzingerode possessed more than thirty-two dollars on the day after the murder, although he previously had only two or three dollars and Swanger had recently possessed a similar amount. While in custody, Wintzingerode made an initial confession after an officer told him it would be better to tell the whole thing, followed by additional confessions to other custodial officials without a warning that the statements could be used against him.
Procedural history
Wintzingerode was indicted in Washington County, Oregon, for murdering Jacob Swanger. The circuit court overruled his motion to quash and demurrer, he pleaded not guilty, and a jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree. The circuit court imposed a death sentence on June 10, 1880. On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the indictment and evidence concerning guns and money were properly handled, but that subsequent confessions were improperly admitted because they followed an involuntary confession while the same influence remained operative.
Remand instructions
The judgment of the circuit court was reversed, and a new trial was ordered.