written confession was procured from him by duress, coercion, intimidation, and fear, and that his plea of guilty was likewise procured, and that neither was voluntary.
Criminal law—evidence held to show no duress or coercion in procuring confession or plea of guilty.
3. An examination of the record discloses that no duress, coercion, or intimidation was exercised in procuring the confession, nor was such used towards him to procure his plea of guilty to the crime charged in the information and for these and other reasons stated in the opinion, it is held that the Court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Opinion filed October 6, 1921.
Appeal from an order of District Court, McLean county, denying a new trial and from a judgment of conviction. Nuessle, J.
Affirmed.
Edward P. Kelly and James Morris, for appellant.
Where the accused in a criminal prosecution in. the. trial court is forced through well grounded fears of mob violence, to plead guilty and to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of years, he has a right to relief from such sentence and plea by proper proceedings in the same Court. State v. Calhoun, 50 Kans. 532; 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 838; 34 Am. St. Rep. 141.
The plea should be entirely voluntary by one competent to know the consequences and should not be induced by fraud, fear, pursuasion, promises, inadvertance or ignorance. Pope v. State 56 Fla. 81; 47 So. 487.
When the Commonwealth introduces in evidence a plea of guilty entered in the Justice Court, the defendant may show that such plea was obtained by duress. Holtman v. Commonwealth, 129. Kans. 710; 112-S. W. 851; Little v. Commonwealth, (Ky.) 34 L. R..A. (N. S.) 257.
A defendant has a right of relief from a judgment entered upon his plea of guilty, where such plea was forced from his reluctant counsel by threats of an angry and excited mob, and interposed because: they believed that to proceed with the trial upon the plea-of not. guilty would result in the handling of their client by lawless men and was entered at a time when the defendant was lost and bewildered. Sanders v. State 85
