Admissions or confessions of the accused freely and voluntarily made may be sufficient to warrant a conviction, if the other evidence in the case clearly 18 Carlton vs. People, 150 Ill.,181;

State vs. Smith, 53 Mo., 267.

19 Com. vs. Webster, 5 Cush.

(Mass.), 320; Carlton vs.People, 150 Ill., 181, 192. 20 Williams vs. People, 101 Ill., 382, 385; Hughes' Cr. Law, Sec.

2415; Walters vs. State, 39

Ohio St., 215. 21 Wacaser vs. People, 134 Ill., 438;

Smith vs. People, 142 Ill., 122;

Carlton vs. People, 150 Ill., 181 (Alibi). 22 State vs. McCracken, 66 Iowa, 569 (Alibi); State vs. Scott, 47 La., 251 (Insanity). 23 Com. vs. Kilpatrick, 204 Pa. St., 218; State vs. Lewis, 20 Nev., 333; State vs. Scott, 49 La., 253.

shows that a crime was committed, in other words, establishes the corpus delicti.24

But a confession is not competent under any circumstances, unless freely and voluntarily made. If any degree of influence has been exerted to induce the accused to make a confession it is incompetent and cannot be used against him. Thus, to tell the accused that the punishment would likely be lighter, if he will tell the whole story, renders his confession incompetent.25

A confession procured on the promise of the state's attorney that it should not be used against him is incompetent and worthless as evidence.26

The rule is that a confession can never be received in evidence when the prisoner has been influenced to make it by any promise, or by any threat, or by any hope that the punishment may be lighter, however slight the influence may have been.27 And it makes no difference whether the confession was made orally or in writing, the same rules govern alike.

Where objection is made to the introduction of a confession for incomptency, it is the duty of the court, out of the presence and hearing of the jury, to hear all the evidence on both sides and determine its competency, or incompetency.28

The judge of the court must be clearly satisfied that a confession is competent from all the evidence before him before permitting it to be introduced in evidence.

24 Gore vs. People, 162 Ill., 265;

People vs. Meyer, 162 N. Y., 357. 25 Robinson vs. People. 159 Ill., 119; Com. vs. Preece, 140

Mass., 276. 26 Robinson vs. People, 159 Ill., 119. 27 Gates vs. People, 14 Ill., 436;

Newman vs. State, 49 Ala., 1;

Bartley vs. People, 156 Ill., 238; Bram vs. U. S., 168 U. S., 532. 28 Com. vs. Culver, 126 Mass., 464; Zuckerman vs. People, 213 Ill., 114; Rufer vs. State, 25 Ohio St., 464; Underbill's Cr. Ev., Sec. 127.