State v. Fuqua, 824

Decision Date20 January 1967
Docket NumberNo. 824,824
Citation152 S.E.2d 68,269 N.C. 223
PartiesSTATE, v. Jerry Arnold FUQUA.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Asst. Atty. Gen. Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State.

Herbert F. Pierce, Graham, for defendant.

BRANCH, Justice.

Appellant assigns as error the ruling of the court below that the confession allegedly made by defendant to officer Cook was voluntary.

'When the State proposes to offer in evidence the defendant's confession or admission, and the defendant objects, the proper procedure is for the trial judge to excuse the jury, and, in its absence, hear the evidence, both that of the State and that of the defendant, upon the question of the voluntariness of the statement. In the light of such evidence and of his observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, the judge must resolve the question of whether the defendant, if he made the statement, made it voluntarily and with understanding. * * * The trial judge should make findings of fact with reference to this question and incorporate those findings in the record. Such findings of fact, so made by the trial judge, are conclusive if they are supported by competent evidence in the record. No reviewing court may properly set aside or modify those findings if so supported by competent evidence in the record.' State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 150 S.E.2d 1; State v. Barnes, 264 N.C. 517, 142 S.E.2d 344; State v. Outing, 255 N.C. 468, 121 S.E.2d 847.

However, 'What facts amount to such threats or promises as make confessions not voluntary and admissible in evidence is a question of law, and the decision of the judge in the court below can be reviewed by this Court; so, what evidence the judge should allow to be offered to him to establish these facts is a question of law. So, whether there be Any evidence tending to show that confessions were not made voluntarily, is a question of law. But whether the evidence, if true, prove these facts, and whether the witnesses giving testimony to the court touching the facts are entitled to credit or not, and in case of a conflict of testimony which witness should be believed by the court, are questions of fact to be decided by the judge; and his decision cannot be reviewed in this court, which is confined to questions of law.' State v. Andrew, 61 N.C. 205; State v. Whitener, 191 N.C. 659, 132 S.E. 603; State v. Woodruff, 259 N.C. 333, 130 S.E.2d 641.

The trial court properly excused the jury and heard evidence on voir dire as to whether defendant's statement was voluntary, giving defendant opportunity to testify and offer evidence.

It is admitted that officer Cook made statements, or failed to make statements, on which defendant relies in order to show that his confession was involuntary. Therefore, we need not consider whether the trial judge properly found facts in order to conclude that the confession was voluntary, since there was no conflict in the pertinent testimony offered on the voir dire. State v. Keith, 266 N.C. 263, 145 S.E.2d 841.

This Court must, however, decide as a matter of law whether the circumstances of this case rendered the confession inadmissible.

Speaking to the subject of free and voluntary confession in State v. Roberts, 12 N.C. 259, Henderson, J., said:

'Confessions are either voluntary or involuntary. They are called voluntary when made neither under the influence of hope or fear, but are attributable to that love of truth which predominates in the breath of every man, not operated upon by other motives more powerful with him, and which, it is said, in the perfectly good man cannot be countervailed. These confessions are the highest evidences of truth, even in cases affecting life. But it is said, and said with truth, that confessions induced by hope or extorted by fear are, of all kinds of evidence, the least to be relied on, and are therefore entirely to be rejected.'

And in the same case Taylor, C.J., said: '(A) confession obtained by the slightest emotions of hope or fear ought to be rejected.' The principles...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1991
    ...304 N.C. 201, 216, 283 S.E.2d 732, 742 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1038, 102 S.Ct. 1741, 72 L.Ed.2d 155 (1982); State v. Fuqua, 269 N.C. 223, 227, 152 S.E.2d 68, 71 (1967). In reviewing whether the confession was voluntarily given, this Court considers the totality of the circumstances. ......
  • State v. Jackson
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • July 7, 1983
    ...had happened.' Nothing else was said. The court's conclusion that the defendant's confession was voluntary was upheld. In State v. Fuqua, 269 N.C. 223, 152 S.E.2d 68, however, the officer testified that he told the defendant 'if he wanted to talk to me then I would be able to testify that h......
  • State v. Persinger
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • January 19, 1982
    ...cert. denied, 444 U.S. 970, 100 S.Ct. 464, 62 L.Ed.2d 385 (1980); State v. Allies, 606 P.2d 1043 (Mont.1979); State v. Fuqua, 269 N.C. 223, 152 S.E.2d 68 (1967); Commonwealth v. Eiland, 450 Pa. 566, 301 A.2d 651 (1973). In the present case, the officer's statement to the accused went beyond......
  • Com. v. Meehan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1979
    ...275 So.2d 634 (1973); State v. Castonguay, 240 A.2d 747 (Me.1968); Lyter v. State, 2 Md.App. 654, 236 A.2d 432 (1968); State v. Fuqua, 269 N.C. 223, 152 S.E.2d 68 (1967).9 In his affidavit the defendant stated that he took twenty five-milligram tablets of Valium at about 9 P.M. on June 10, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT