State v. Roberts

Decision Date31 December 1826
Citation12 N.C. 259
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesTHE STATE v. SAMUEL ROBERTS.
From Buncombe.

Where a prisoner has once been induced to confess by the impression of hope or fear, confessions subsequently made are presumed to proceed from the same influence, until the contrary be shown by clear proof; and while this presumption remain unanswered, these latter confessions (though induced by no immediate threat or promise) are not admissible evidence.

THE prisoner was indicted for burglary, and on the trial before Strange, J., Mr. Solicitor Wilson offered in evidence confessions made by the prisoner under the following circumstances: After he was arrested, some person (one Smith, the prosecutor, being present) said, "that as the prisoner was now in custody, any confession he might make could not be given in evidence against him; he might therefore as well come out with the whole truth"; and some other person added, "that as he was a young man, if he made confessions it would be more to his credit hereafter." Upon this, the prisoner made the confession which was offered to be given in evidence, but the court rejected it.

It was then proved that several days after the prisoner was committed to jail, he of his own voluntary motion requested the jailer to send for Smith, stating that he wished to disclose to him the names of certain persons who had been concerned in and advised the commission of the burglary. Smith came, and after the prisoner had stated his accomplices' names, Smith

asked him how he got the door open, in answer to which he described the manner of opening the door, and stated other circumstances tending to establish his guilt, many of which were confirmed by the testimony of other witnesses.

These latter confessions the court received and left to the jury, who found the prisoner guilty; and a new trial being refused and judgment pronounced, the prisoner appealed.

TAYLOR, C. J. I think it would be unsafe to extend the admission of confessions in evidence against a prisoner further than a course of approved adjudications warrant. The true rule is that a confession cannot be received in evidence where the defendant has been influenced by any threat or promise; for, as it has been justly remarked, the mind, under the pressure of calamity, is prone to acknowledge, indiscriminately, a falsehood or a truth, as different agitations may prevail; and therefore a confession obtained by the slightest emotions of hope or fear ought to be rejected. Here the prisoner was told his confession could not be given in evidence on account of his being in custody, and that he had better tell the whole truth; and further, that as he was a young man, it would be to his credit hereafter. Some confession was made under the immediate influence of the motives thus presented to him. Two or three days afterwards, without any immediate influence being exercised over him, he made a fuller confession; but it is impossible to say that the latter was voluntary, for it may have been the result of the hope first held out to him, and before it is admitted, the court ought to be thoroughly satisfied that it was voluntary.

There ought to be a new trial.

HALL, J. In order to make the confessions of a prisoner evidence to a jury, it should appear that he was not induced to make them from a hope of favor or compelledby fear of injury.

As to the first confessions made by the prisoner in this case, two circumstances are observable: first, he was told that any confessions he might make could not be given in evidence against him, because he was in custody; and, secondly, that if he made any, it would be more to his credit hereafter. I think the judge acted altogether right in rejecting, as evidence, these confessions, because they were made with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 cases
  • State v. Anderson, 721.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1935
    ...no consid-[182 S.E. 651]eration. State v. Livingston, supra; State v. Patrick, 48 N.C. 443. Speaking to the subject 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 hop......
  • State v. Jackson
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • July 7, 1983
    ...admissible under the decisional law of the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The decision to which the trial court referred is State v. Roberts, 12 N.C. 259 (1827). The pertinent parts of that opinion Confessions are either voluntary or involuntary. They are called voluntary when made neithe......
  • State v. Vickers, 739
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1968
    ...and only when, it was, in fact, voluntarily and understandingly made has long been recognized and approved in this jurisdiction. State v. Roberts, 12 N.C. 259; State v. Rogers, 233 N.C. 390, 64 S.E.2d 572, 28 A.L.R.2d 1104; State v. Moore, 210 N.C. 686, 188 S.E. We must first consider wheth......
  • State v. Moore
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1936
    ...before the subsequent confession can be received in evidence. State v. Drake, 82 N.C. 592; State v. Lowhorne, 66 N.C. 638; State v. Roberts, 12 N.C. 259. On the other hand, it is equally well established that, although a confession may have been obtained by such means as would exclude it, a......
  • 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