State v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 31 January 1872 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. MARTHA MATTHEWS. |
1. The confessions of a prisoner ought to be received with great caution, and unless they are free and voluntary, and without fear produced by threats, or inducements of temporal advantage, ought to be rejected.
2. The examination of a prisoner as to his own guilt, taken before a committing magistrate, is not admissible in evidence, when the statement is made under the constraint of an oath, and therefore, not voluntary. The objection to the admissibility of such evidence, is much stronger, if the prisoner be under arrest.
3. To authorize the introduction of parol evidence as to confessions of a prisoner, taken before an examining magistrate, it must appear affirmatively that there was no examination recorded as required by law.
4. Under the Act of 1868-'69, ch. 178, the prisoner is entitled to the benefit of counsel, and before his examination it is the duty of the magistrate to inform him of the charge against him, and “that he is at liberty to refuse to answer any question that may be put to him, and that his refusal shall not be used to his prejudice.” Such examinations are judicial confessions, and the policy of the law requires them to be taken under the protecting caution and oversight of the judicial officer--this caution is an essential part of the proceedings and must be given to a prisoner under arrest, to render his examination admissible in evidence.
5. The reason of the statute extends to an inquisition by a coroner. In this respect, he is, an examining magistrate.
6. When a prisoner is brought before a coroner while he is holding an inquisition, and after witnesses had been examined, a post mortem examination made, and a verdict entered up, in answer to a question asked by the foreman of the jury “confessed,” held, that although after the first question was put, the prisoner was cautioned by the coroner not to answer, the caution came too late, to afford the protection which the law requires, and the confession was inadmissible.
7. When a physician was examined as a witness, and stated that he had examined the prisoner, and was of opinion that she had been delivered of a child within three or four days, and it was proposed to ask him “whether from his experience and knowledge of females in three or four days after the delivery of a child, and under the circumstances detailed by the evidence, the prisoner was in a frame of mind to give an intelligent answer, or know what she was talking about?” Held, that the question was proper, and should have been allowed.
8. The rule of law in criminal cases, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, does not require the State, even in a case of circumstantial testimony to prove such a coincidence of circumstances as excludes every hypothesis except the guilt of the prisoner. The true rule is, that the circumstances and evidence must be such, as to produce a moral certainty of guilt, and to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis.
State vs. Broughton, 7 Iredell, 96, State vs. Young, 1 Winston, 126, State vs. Parrish, Busbee 239, Queen vs. Johnston, 2 Heard L. C., cases 504, cited and approved.
indictment for murder, tried before Cannon, Judge, at Forsythe Superior Court, Fall Term 1871.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On Saturday or Sunday, about the 6th day of May, A. D. 1871, an after-birth was found at a mill pond near the prisoner's residence. The neighbors, believing that a child had been murdered on Monday, drew off the water of the pond in search of its body. While this was going on, the prisoner was brought to the place where the after-birth was found, but then denied any knowledge of it. Nothing being found in the pond, search was made in the woods and the body of a child was found, buried within one hundred yards of the prisoner's house. She and her mother were arrested shortly thereafter. About an hour after dark a coroner's jury and an examining physician arrived at the place and held an inquest. The body of the child was brought near the door of the house in which prisoner lived. While the inquest was being held and a post mortem examination was being made by the physician, the prisoner was lying on a bed in the house, (which consisted of a single room,) weeping and groaning. Suddenly, she sprang to the door and as suddenly sprang back again, and fell upon the bed and was much excited. After the post mortem examination had been finished, witnesses examined, and verdict of the jury rendered, the prisoner, in answer to a question asked by the foreman of the jury, confessed. The coroner, after the first question was put, cautioned prisoner, telling her not to answer, that it was none of his business and that her answers would be used against her. Prisoner's counsel asked His Honor to exclude the confessions. His Honor admitted them and prisoner excepted. The physician stated that he had examined the prisoner, and was of opinion that the prisoner had given birth to a child within three or four days before the inquest was held. The prisoner's counsel proposed to ask witness, “from his knowledge of the condition of females in three or four days after the delivery of a child, under the circumstances as detailed by the evidence, the prisoner was in a condition or frame of mind to give an intelligent answer or know what she was talking about?” This question was objected to, and the objection sustained by the Court. In the argument to the jury, the prisoner's counsel proposed to read from a medical work, certain extracts, not as evidence, but as a part of their argument applicable to the evidence. This was objected to, and disallowed by the Court. The theory of the prosecution was, that the child had come to its death by a blow with a stick on the top of its head. The physician testified, that between the scalp and the skull, he found a collection of coagulated blood about the size of a half-dollar with several smaller spots of like kind surrounding it. That in his opinion, it was improbable that a blow upon the top of the head, sufficient to cause death, would not have been attended with contusion or laceration of the skin, a fracture of the skull, &c. That the appearance on the head was not uncommon from natural causes. That he could account for the death otherwise than by violence, viz: by neglect. Upon this testimony the prisoner's counsel asked His Honor to charge the jury, that before they could convict, the evidence must be so strong as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than the guilt of the prisoner. His Honor did not so charge, but told the jury the evidence must satisfy them beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prisoner excepted. Verdict of guilty. Rule for a new trial. Rule discharged. Judgment. Appeal to the Supreme Court.
Attorney General, for State .
Morehead & Watson, for defendant .
The rules of evidence as to the admissibility, on a trial for crime, of the previous confessions of the prisoner, have been much discussed, both in this country and in England, and have given rise to considerable conflict of judicial opinion. It is not necessary for us to enter into this intricate maze of judicial uncertainty as the principles which govern this case are founded in natural justice and upon high authority. The confessions of prisoners are received in evidence upon the natural, as well as legal presumption, that a prisoner will not make an untrue statement, against his own interest. This presumption is weak or strong, according to the various circumstances and facts of the particular case. All the authorities agree that such evidence ought to be taken with great caution and unless the confessions were free and voluntary, and made with deliberation and without fear, excited by threats, or inducement of temporal advantage, they ought to be rejected as evidence on a trial for the admitted crime. Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare was a well established maxim of the common law, and was applicable, both in civil and criminal proceedings. Even the Court of Chancery, in enforcing discovery does not depart from this general policy of the law and will not require a party to discover matters to criminate himself, or expose him to a penalty or forfeiture. No examination of a prisoner as to a crime charged against him was allowed in England until the passage of the statutes of Phil. & M.--1 Greenleaf on Ev., 256.
The provisions of these statutes were substantially re-enacted in this State, ( Rev. Code, Ch. 35), and many decisions have been made under them.
It is well settled that the examination on oath of a prisoner as to his own guilt, taken before a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McLeod
...to produce in the minds of the jurors a moral certainty of the defendant's guilt and to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis. State v. Matthews, 66 N.C. 106; State v. supra. Here, the incriminating evidence, taken in its entirety, if accepted and believed by the jury, would seem to be su......
-
Bram v. United States, 340
...applied was involved in obscurity and confusion. Green v. State, 88 Ga. 516, 15 S. E. 10; State v. Patterson, 73 Mo. 695, 705; State v. Matthews, 66 N. C. 106, 109. The first of these statements but expresses the thought that whether a confession was voluntary was primarily one of fact, and......
-
State v. Farrell
... ... being thus induced, it is deemed to be involuntary. State ... v. King, 162 N.C. 580, 77 S.E. 301; State v ... Vaughan, 156 N.C. 615, 71 S.E. 1089; State v ... Parker, 132 N.C. 1014, 43 S.E. 830; State v ... Young, 60 N.C. 126; State v. Matthews, 66 N.C ... 106; State v. Broughton, 29 N.C. 96, 45 Am.Dec. 507 ... The reasons in support of this position are fully set forth ... in State v. Parker, supra; State v. Broughton, supra; and ... People v. McMahon, 15 N.Y. 384. But these cases have ... no application to the testimony of a ... ...
-
State v. Coffey
...hypothesis,' Stacy, C. J., in State v. Harvey, N.C., 44 S.E.2d 472, citing State v. Stiwinter, 211 N.C. 278, 189, S.E. 868; State v. Matthews, 66 N.C. 106. evidence in its entirety tends to show no more than that defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime. And evidence of opportunity......