State v. Garrett
| Decision Date | 30 June 1874 |
| Citation | 71 N.C. 85,17 Am.Rep. 1 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ANICA GARRETT and LUCY STANLEY. |
Any circumstances tending to show the guilt of the accused, may be proved, although it was brought to light by a declaration inadmissible per se, as having been obtained by improper influence.
Therefore, evidence as to the condition of the prisoner's hand at the time of holding the inquest is admissible, although the prisoner was then compelled to exhibit her hand by the Coroner after objection on her part.
( State v. Jacobs, 5 Jones, 259; State v. Johnson, 67 N. C. Rep. 55, cited and approved.)
INDICTMENT, for murder, tried at Fall Term, 1873, of the Superior Court of WASHINGTON county, before his Honor, Judge Moore.
The prisoners were charged with the murder of Alvina Garrett, a girl of fourteen years of age; on the trial, Lucy Stanley was acquitted.
The evidence for the State established that on the 26th of August, 1873, the prisoners made an out-cry that the deceased came to her death by her clothes accidentally catching fire while she was asleep; and when the witness reached the house where the body of the girl, and where the prisoners were, Anica Garrett told the witness that “she,” Anica, “was asleep when she was awakened by the deceased screaming; that she went to her, her clothes were still burning, and in attempting to put out the flames, she, Anica, burnt one of her hands.”
By Dr. Walker, the examing physician on the Coroner's inquest, it was proved that the body of the deceased girl was not burned before, but after death, there being no serum in the blisters, &c.
The prisoner, Anica, while under arrest, and very much agitated before the Coroner, and after the jury had rendered their verdict against her, in their presence, was ordered by the Coroner to unwrap the hand she alleged had been burnt, and show it to Dr. Walker, so that it might be seen if it had been burned or not. This she did, and there was no indication whatever of any burn upon it. This evidence was objected to by the counsel for the prisoner, because it was in substance compelling the prisoner to furnish evidence against herself; and that being under arrest, and alarmed, nothing which she had said or done while under arrest, and at the Coroner's command, was admissible in evidence against her, she not having been cautioned and informed of her rights according to law.
The Court ruled that anything the prisoner said at the inquest was inadmissible, but that the actual condition of her hand, although she was ordered by the Coroner to unwrap it and exhibit to the doctor, was admissible as material evidence to contradict her statement to the witness on the night of the homicide and before she was arrested. To this ruling, counsel for prisoner excepted.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Rule for a new trial, granted and discharged. Judgment of death and appeal by prisoner.
J. A. and A. M. Moore and Jones & Jones, for the prisoner , submitted:
No person is compelled to give evidence against himself. Bill of Rights, sec 11. Nor can a defendant be compelled to furnish evidence for the State, by exhibiting himself to the jury. State v. Jacobs, 5 Jones, 259. Being compelled to show her hand is within the rule. See also as to this, 1 Lord Raymond, 705; 2 Ibid, 927; Rex v. Shelby, 3 Term Rep. 142.
Confessions must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elliott v. State
...to produce incriminating papers and Fifth Amendment protected only "testimonial" aspects of the transfer).14 Compare State v. Garrett, 71 N.C. 85, 88 (1874) (holding that coroner’s testimony of the incriminating evidence that he saw when the defendant was forced to unwrap her hand did not v......
-
State v. Griffin
...use as evidence is justified, and a collateral issue will not be raised to ascertain the source of competent evidence. In State v. Garrett, 71 N.C. 85, 17 Am. Rep. 1, charged with murder had said that the deceased was accidentally burned to death, and that she had burned her hand in trying ......
-
State v. Maes
...278 F. 231; United States v. Wilson (C. C. S.D.N.Y.) 163 F. 338; United States v. Snyder (D. C. W. D. W. Va.) 278 F. 650; State v. Garrett, 71 N.C. 85, 17 Am. Rep. 1; and the almost rule in the state courts, Chastang State, 83 Ala. 29, 3 So. 304; Shields v. State, 104 Ala. 35, 16 So. 85, 53......
-
State v. Rogers
...that he made the accused put his foot in tracks found at the scene of the crime, and that his foot fitted such tracks; and (3) State v. Garrett, 71 N.C. 85, where it was adjudged that the constitutional inhibition against self-incrimination was not infringed by the receipt of the evidence o......
-
Self-incrimination - what can an accused person be compelled to do?
...13. (18) State v. Ah Chuey, 14 Nev. 79 (1879). (19) O'Brien v. State, 125 Ind. 38, 25 N. E. 137, 9 L. R. A. 323 (1890); State v. Gannett, 71 N. C. 85, 17 Am Rep. 1 (1874). Also see: Statev. Miller, 71 N.J.L. 527, 60 Atl. 202 (1905); Statev. Tettaton, 159 Mo. 354, 60 S. W. 743 (1900); Hooks ......