State v. Rogers
Decision Date | 11 April 1893 |
Citation | 17 S.E. 297,112 N.C. 874 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE. v. ROGERS. |
Criminal Law — Confessions — Accused Tied during Examination — Reading Books to Jury.
1. The fact that a prisoner charged with murder was tied during his preliminary examination by the committing magistrate is not a valid objection to the admission of a confession made by him during such examination, it not appearing that he was tied in such a manner as to produce pain, or to tend to induce or extort from him a confession; but the practice of keeping the prisoner shackled or tied during such examination is not to be commended.
2. Under Code, § 1146, providing that "at the commencement of the examination the prisoner shall be informed by the magistrate that he is at liberty to refuse to answer any question that may be put to him, and that his refusal to answer shall not be used to his prejudice in any stage of the proceedings, " it is not necessary that the magistrate shall use the precise words of the statute in giving the prescribed caution, but it is sufficient if there be a substantial compliance with the requirements of the law.
3. The court properly refused to allow counsel for defendant, charged with poisoning his wife, to read to the jury, in the course of his argument, from "Reese's Med. Jur. & Toxicology, " a book which had not been admitted in evidence, and no witness having been examined concerning the same.
Appeal from superior court, Richmond county; Winston. Judge.
Tony Rogers was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
W. H. Neal, for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the State.
The state offered evidence tending to prove that the prisoner bought a box of "Rough on Rats" at Laurinburg on a certain Saturday; that prisoner inquired when he bought it whether it would kill people, and was told that it would, and was cautioned to keep it out of the way of children and his "eatables;" that he carried It home, and administered part of it to his wife, Rhoda Rogers, who died from the effects thereof on the next day, —Sunday. M. J. Edwards, a witness for the state, was offered for the purpose of proving confessions of the prisoner. Witness testified: The state proposed to read the paper above referred to as a confession of the prisoner. The prisoner's counsel objected, upon the grounds: (1) Because the prisoner was not allowed a reasonable time to send for and advise with counsel; (2) because the prisoner was tied while being examined; (3) because the prisoner was not told and cautioned that he was at liberty to refuse to answer any question that might be put to him; (4) because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Conn v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
...writings of a scientific nature to the jury. Melvin v. Easley, 46 N.C. 386, 62 Am. Dec. 171; Huffman v. Click, 77 N.C. 55; State v. Rogers, 112 N.C. 874, 17 S.E. 297; Butler v. R. R., 130 N.C. 16, 40 S.E. 770; v. Mfg. Co., 167 N.C. 98, 83 S.E. 6; Tilghman v. R. R., 171 N.C. 652, 89 S.E. 71,......
-
McCleary v. State
... ... 253, 65 A. 1; State ... v. Patterson, 73 Mo. 695; Stallings v. State, ... 47 Ga. 572; Fouse v. State, 83 Neb. 258, 119 N.W ... 478; Pierce v. U.S., 160 U.S. 355, 16 S.Ct. 321, 40 ... L.Ed. 454; Sparf v. U. S., 156 U.S. 51, 15 S.Ct ... 273, 39 L.Ed. 343; State v. Rogers, 112 N.C. 874, 17 ... S.E. 297 ... The ... third reason advanced on behalf of the traverser against the ... admissibility of the confession is his supposed mental ... irresponsibility at the time when the confession was made. He ... had been arrested in the city of ... ...
-
McCleart v. State
...v. U. S., 160 U. S. 355, 16 Sup. Ct. 321, 40 L. Ed. 454; Sparf v. U. S., 156 U. S. 51, 15 Sup. Ct. 273, 39 L. Ed. 343; State v. Rogers, 112 N. C. 874, 17 S. E. 297. The third reason advanced on behalf of the traverser against the admissibility of the confession is his supposed mental irresp......
-
Tilgham v. Seabd. Air Line Ry
...this state in Melvin v. Easley, 46 N. C. 386, 62 Am. Dec. 171; Huffman v. Click, 77 N. C. 55; Horah v. Knox, 87 N. C. 478; State v. Rogers, 112 N. C. 874, 17 S. E. 297; Butler v. R. R., 130 N. C. 15, 40 S. E. 770; Lynch v. Manf. Co., 167 N. C. 98, 83 S. E. 6. In Huffman v. Click the court s......