Criminal Law—Evidence — Voluntary Confession.—A confession, freely and voluntarily made, is not rendered immaterial or incompetent as evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution from the fact that the defendant’s sister was also under arrest for the commission of the crime, and the confession may have been made to free her from the suspicion of guilt.

Id.—Admission of Confession.—The admission in evidence of a written confession of the defendant is without prejudice, if another witness and the defendant himself, when a witness in his own behalf, testify to substantially the same facts as those contained in the confession.

Id.—Once in Jeopardy — Failure to Render Verdict. — Where a defendant in a criminal prosecution has once been placed on trial, on a valid information, before a legal jury, and in a court of competent jurisdiction, he has been placed in jeopardy, and is forever protected from a second prosecution for the same offense, unless the jury was prevented from rendering a verdict by some legal necessity.

Id. —Failure to Agree upon Verdict — Discharge of Jury. —The inability of the jury to agree upon a verdict is one of those necessities that will authorize the court to discharge the jury, and thereby subject the defendant to a second trial.

Id. — Erroneous Discharge of Jury—Impeachment of Record.—The defendant, on a second trial for the same offense, in order to support his plea of once in jeopardy, cannot impeach the record of the first trial by extrinsic evidence of facts showing an erroneous exercise of judicial discretion in discharging the jury on the ground that there was no reasonable probability of their agreeing.

Id.—Absence of Defendant at Time of Discharge of Jury.—The fact that the defendant was not present at the time the jury was discharged, his presence having been waived by his counsel, does not affect the question of his jeopardy, as his objection to the discharge of the jury at that time could not have defeated the validity” of the court’s action.

Id. —Recording and Declaring Verdict —Irregularity without Prejudice. — In a prosecution for murder, when the jury were about to retire, the court handed them forms of verdicts as to the pleas of former acquittal, former conviction, and once in jeopardy, and instructed them to find for the people thereon. Upon the return of the jury, the foreman declared the verdict to be, guilty of murder. The clerk read the verdict to the jury as recorded, and asked them if that was their verdict, and they all responded, “Yes.” The foreman also handed to the court their verdicts on the three special pleas. The court then, in the presence of the jury, stated that these verdicts were in favor of the people, and asked the counsel for the defendant whether they insisted upon having them then entered by the clerk before the jury were discharged, and read to them, and have them declared whether they were their verdicts. The counsel for the defendant having waived the then recording of these verdicts, the jury were discharged, and the verdicts were recorded afterwards. Held, that the requirements of sections 1149 and 1164 of the Penal Code, as to the manner of declaring and recording the verdicts, had not been complied with, hut that the irregularity was without prejudice.