" State v. Harvey, 145 Wn. 161, 164, 259 P. 21 (1927) — "[T]he language used by the officers could have meant but one thing to these boys, — that they would be locked up until they were willing to talk, and that unless they confessed, they would be prosecuted on a series of charges." State v. McCullum, 18 Wn. 394, 51 P. 1044 (1897) — Defendant was placed in a dark cell until he confessed.
The testimony upon which these contentions are made consisted of statements relating to the solitary confinement for three days and nights of the defendant, with the electric lights burning so that he could not sleep; being called a liar; assurance of the sheriff's friendship and help if he would sign the confession; and, generally speaking, what might be termed an over-reaching of the defendant. In support of his contention, appellant cites State v. Miller, 61 Wn. 125, 111 P. 1053; State v. McCullum, 18 Wn. 394, 51 P. 1044; State v. Susan, 152 Wn. 365, 278 P. 149; State v. Bestolas, 155 Wn. 212, 283 P. 687; State v. Harvey, 145 Wn. 161, 259 P. 21; State v. Marcy, 189 Wn. 620, 66 P.2d 846; State v. Marselle, 43 Wn. 273, 86 P. 586; State v. Miller, 68 Wn. 239, 122 P. 1066. [1] An analysis of these cases reveals that, where an issue of fact arises as to the question of the influence of fear produced by threats and confessions made under inducement, it is not a question of law for the court to decide but is a question of fact for the jury under proper instructions.
The question was for the jury and was properly submitted to it. State v. Miller, 61 Wn. 125, 111 P. 1053; State v. Harvey, 145 Wn. 161, 259 P. 21, have no application here. [5] Two boys, of about the age of sixteen years, testified for the state.