State v. Harrison

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: AVERY
• Citation: State v. Harrison, 115 N.C. 706, 20 S.E. 175 (N.C. 1894)
• Decision Date: 09 October 1894
• Parties: STATE. v. HARRISON.

20 S.E. 175

115 N.C. 706

STATE.

v.HARRISON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 9, 1894.

Homicide—Admissions by Dependant.

On indictment for murder, an admission by defendant, an infirm and diseased old woman, that she caused a person to do the killing, made to a detective disguised as a stave-getter, and induced by his promise that if she would tell him all about it he would give her something so that she could not be caught, is admissible in evidence.

Appeal from criminal court, Hertford county; Winborne, Judge.

Harriet Harrison was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

The only exception relied upon by counsel in this court was that to the admissibility of the confessions of the prisoner. It was in evidence that the prisoner was an infirm and diseased old woman. The state introduced one Thomas as a witness, who testified that he was a detective, and that be went to the house of the prisoner, and represented himself as a stave-getter; and that while at the house of the prisoner she told him that she was in great trouble, because some one had killed her husband, and that she knew who had killed him; that he then said to her: "You had better tell me all about it. I am a right good old monger doctor. I can work roots and gummer folks, and If you will tell me all about it I can give you something so you cannot be caught" Thereupon she told the witness that she got Elisha Reed to kill the deceased. Objection was made to the admission of this confession made by the prisoner under the inducement offered. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant excepted, and appealed from the judgment pronounced upon the verdict.

Pruden & Vann, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

AVERY, J. When the competency of a confession is drawn in question, the correct inquiry in every such case is whether the inducement was such as to lead the prisoner to suppose that it would be better for him to confess himself guilty of a crime he did not commit Rex v. Gibbons, 1 Car. & p. 97; Reg. v. Reason, 12 Cox, Cr. Cas. 228; Reg. v. Reeve, Id. 179. The evil to be apprehended and guarded against is inducing an innocent person to confess guilt through hope or fear. When the acknowledgment of the truth of inculpating facts is not made under the impression that, whether it is true or false, the mere making of the statement will bring some benefit to or ward off some danger from the person making it in connection with an accusation of crime against such person, there is no sufficient reason for excluding evidence of the confession. There was no pretense of any power on the part of the witness to control the conduct of the authorities of the state as to instituting or pressing a prosecution for the crime. The witness was not known to the prisoner to be a detective. She stated, without Inducement that she knew who had killed her husband; but it did not follow necessarily that she was guilty as principal or accessory before or after the fact though the witness seemed to think so. The hope held out to her appealed...