State v. Wisdom
24 S.W. 1047, 1894 Mo. LEXIS 24, 119 Mo. 539 (1894)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's voluntary statements made during a judicial proceeding, such as a coroner's inquest, are admissible against them at trial. Evidence of a defendant's conduct, such as refusing to participate in a superstitious test, may also be admissible as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt for the jury to weigh.
Facts:
- Defendant Wisdom worked for the victim, Edward Drexler, and knew that Drexler kept a large amount of money on the premises.
- Wisdom and his associate, John Willard, conspired to rob Drexler.
- On the day before the murder, Wisdom removed an iron bar securing a coal hole grate in the sidewalk in front of Drexler's shop and neglected to replace it.
- On the morning of April 24, 1892, Drexler was found in his shop, severely beaten about the head.
- Drexler died from his injuries, which the autopsy revealed were caused by a blunt instrument.
- An iron bar, fitting the coal hole grating, was discovered near the scene with blood and hair on it.
- After the murder, Wisdom gave police conflicting statements, first providing a false alibi and later admitting to planning the robbery but accusing Willard of committing the actual assault.
- Wisdom led police to a hidden key that fit the lock on Drexler's front door.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant Wisdom was indicted for murder in the first degree in the city of St. Louis.
- At his arraignment, Wisdom entered a plea of not guilty.
- The court granted a severance, ordering separate trials for Wisdom and his co-defendant, John Willard.
- A jury in the criminal court (trial court) found Wisdom guilty of murder in the first degree.
- Wisdom appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Missouri, Division Two.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence of a defendant's voluntary sworn statements from a coroner's inquest and his refusal to touch the victim's corpse admissible at his murder trial as evidence of guilt?
Opinions:
Majority - Gantt, P. J.
Yes. A defendant's statements and conduct are admissible if they are voluntary, and the jury is entitled to weigh them as circumstantial evidence of guilt. The court reasoned that the test for the admissibility of an accused person's statement, whether made in a judicial proceeding or not, is whether it was voluntary. The old rule that statements made under oath were inadmissible is no longer maintained; because Wisdom requested to make his statements at the coroner's inquest, they were clearly voluntary and admissible. Regarding Wisdom's refusal to touch the victim's body—a test prompted by superstition—the court held that while the test itself is baseless, a person's reaction to it is a circumstance that the jury may consider. A consciousness of guilt, the court reasoned, could have influenced Wisdom's refusal, and it was one of many facts for the jury to weigh in determining his guilt.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the modern evidentiary standard that voluntariness, not the presence of an oath, is the key determinant for the admissibility of a defendant's statements. It sets a notable precedent by allowing a defendant's reaction to a superstitious ritual to be introduced as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt. This widens the scope of conduct that can be presented to a jury, emphasizing that any action, however irrational its prompt, may be relevant if it potentially reveals a defendant's state of mind regarding the crime.
