Page:Redd v. State (1897).pdf/13

ARK.] defendant has made a confession. In determining that matter, they should consider the testimony of the witnesses who testify to such confessions, their character and interest in the matter, and the reasonableness or unreasonableness of their testimony; and if, after a consideration thereof, they believe that the defendant has made a confession, it is for the jury then to determine the weight to give such confession. In arriving at their conclusion on that point, it is proper for them to consider the person to whom the confession is made, whether it was deliberately and voluntarily made, and all other circumstances surrounding such confession, in order properly to determine what weight and importance to attach to the same; and when two defendants are tried together, the jury should be told that the confession of one defendant is not evidence against the other defendant.

It is further said that the circuit court committed error in permitting the witness Lefew to give to the jury the inferences and conclusions he drew from certain facts in proof, but no objection was made to such testimony before the circuit court, and none can be made here.

We have not set out the evidence in this case further than was necessary to understand the points of law discussed, and express no opinion concerning it. After due consideration, we have concluded that the motion for rehearing should be sustained, and that defendant Redd, as well as Johnson, should be granted a new trial; and it is so ordered.

BATTLE and HUGHES, JJ., concur.

WOOD, J., is of opinion that the court committed error in giving instruction No. 10, and concurs in the judgment for that reason only.

BUNN, C. J., dissents.

