State v. Dildy

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: READE
• Citation: State v. Dildy, 72 N.C. 325 (N.C. 1875)
• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Parties: STATE v. SIMON DILDY.

72 N.C. 325

STATE

v.SIMON DILDY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1875.

The confessions of a prisoner, to be competent evidence on a trial of murder, must be voluntary:

Therefore, where the facts showed that the prisoner was pursued by three armed men, and being arrested, replied to the questions accusing him of the alleged Homicide: It was held, that his confession under such circumstances, could not be received as evidence against him.

INDICTMENT for murder, tried before Seymour, J., at Fall Term, 1874, WILSON Superior Court.

The defendant, one Simon Dildy, was charged with the murder of Charles Goy. On the trial, Henry Johnston, a witness for the State, testified: That he was one of a party that went out to arrest the prisoner on the day of the homicide. That he and two others came up with the prisoner about twelve miles from the town of Wilson; that when these three, (witness and two others,) came up to the prisoner, they had arms in their hands, but did not present them at the prisoner. They did not inform the prisoner that they had come to arrest him. The prisoner did not appear to be at all frightened. Under these circumsttances witness asked prisoner what he was doing there. Prisoner replied that he was “just walking about.” Witness then asked prisoner, “What made you kill Charles Goy?” Counsel for the prisoner insisted that his answer to this question should not be given by the witness, for the reason that it appeared to the Court from the circumstances detailed, that such answer was extorted or drawn out by undue influence, compulsion and terror brought to bear upon the prisoner by the witness and his companions.

The Court overruled the objection and the witness then testified that the witness inquired, “Is he dead?” To this witness replied, “You ought to know he's dead, when you killed him.”

As witness was about to testify what the prisoner next said, counsel for the prisoner again asked the Court to exclude any thing further, to which the witness might testify, as coming from the prisoner, for the reason that improper influence, compulsion and terror was brought to bear upon the prisoner by the witness and his companions.

The Court overruled the objection, and the prisoner excepted.

Witness then stated that the prisoner then and there confessed that he shot the deceased, saying that he thought to shoot him in the legs, but did not intend to kill him.

The counsel for the prisoner then moved to rule out this alleged confession and exclude it from the consideration of the jury, on account of the improper influence, compulsion and terror above mentioned.

His Honor overruled the motion, and the prisoner again excepted.

There were other exceptions taken by the prisoner during the progress of the trial, but as they are not noticed in this Court, it is unnecessary to state thcm.

H. F. Murray, for the prisoner .

Attorney General Hargrove, for the State .

READE, J.

We should never ruthlessly invade the sanctuary of the prisoner's own breast for evidence to convict him. We should enter only, and even then with...