Republica v. M'Carty

• Citation: 1 L.Ed. 300,2 Dall. 86,2 U.S. 86
• Parties: Republica v. M'Carty *
• Decision Date: 01 April 1781
• Court: United States Supreme Court

2 U.S. 86

2 Dall. 86

1 L.Ed. 300

Republica v. M'Carty^*

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April Term, 1781

The defendant was indicted for High-Treason, in levying war, &c. by joining the armies of the King of Great Britain.

On the trial, the Attorney General offered to give the confession of the party in evidence made at the time of his arraignment; but Ingersoll objected, that a confession could only be admitted to be given in evidence by way of corroboration, and that, therefore, an overt act should be first proved. Fost. 10. 240.

Bradford, Attorney General, contended, that the confession proved by two witnesses was of itself sufficient; but that, independent of that position, it was not necessary to prove the overt act, before the admission of the confession; and he referred to 5 Bac. Abr. 152.

By the Court: No case of this kind has hitherto occurred in this Court. In the case of the Commonwealth v. Roberts. ^(a) The defendant's confession was offered merely to shew quo animo he committed the treasonable act; and the Court were there of opinion, that it ought to be admitted as corroborative proof. We find, indeed, that in Berwick's case, Fost. 10, two Judges thought that a confession after the fact, proved by two witnesses, was sufficient to convict, within the 7 W.3: But Justice Foster doubted the propriety of that opinion; as the statute seemed to require two witnesses to the overt acts, or a confession in open Court.

The statute of 7 W. 3. on which that diversity of sentiment arose, does not, however, extend to Pennsylvania; but materially varies from our law on the subject. For instance, the act of Parliament requires two witnesses to find the indictment, as well as to prove the overt act upon the trial: But the act of Assembly prescribes nothing about the evidence to find the indictment; which may, therefore, proceed either from one witness or from any other kind of proof, that will serve to convince the Grand Jury; and although it declares that there shall be two witnesses to convict the defendant on his trial, it does not specify, that they shall be witnesses to an overt act, or any other particular matter. Again: The statute of W. 3. provides for the case of a confession 'willingly, without violence, in open Court;' whereas the act of Assembly uses no such words.

Certain it is, that considered abstractedly at common law, the confession of the party would be sufficient proof to convict him. But, upon the whole, we decline giving an opinion at this time, whether, taking into view the act of Assembly, the confession, proved by two witnesses, can have such conclusive force. We do not hesitate, however, to receive it in corroboration of any other evidence that may be adduced in support of the prosecution.

The evidence and arguments of Counsel being concluded, the Chief Justice delivered the following charge to the Jury.

M'Kean, C. J.

The...