State v. Rorie
| Decision Date | 31 January 1876 |
| Citation | 74 N.C. 148 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. JERRE RORIE and PATSY RUSHING. |
A prisoner under arrest, on his preliminary examination, was told by the committing magistrate that “he was charged with selling stolen corn, and that if he wanted to tell anything, he could do so, but it was just as he chose:” Held, that the statement then made by the prisoner, and reduced to writing by the magistrate, was not admissible in evidence on the trial in the Superior Court; for the reason that the prisoner had not been cautioned as provided for in sec. 23, chap. 33, Bat. Rev., and had not been sufficiently put on his guard.
That the statement of the prisoner was in the nature of a denial, and not a confession, made no difference, and it was not for the State to say, that such declaration did not prejudice the prisoner's case.
( State v. Mathews, 66 N. C. Rep. 106, cited and approved.)
This was an INDICTMENT for Larceny, and receiving stolen property, knowing it to be stolen, tried before Buxton, J., at Fall Term, 1875, of RICHMOND Superior Court.
The bill of indictment was found at Fall Term, 1875, of Anson Superior Court, and, upon the affidavit of the prisoner, removed to Richmond county.
There were several exceptions taken to the rulings of his Honor in the court below, but as the case, as decided in this court, turns upon a single point they are omitted.
During the progress of the trial, one Redfearn, the prosecutor, testified, among other things, that after the witnesses were examined before the committing Magistrate, the defendant then made a statement which was taken down in writing by the Magistrate. The Solicitor here proposed to read in evidence the statement made by the defendant and certified by the Magistrate. The counsel for the prisoner objected on ground that the statement was in the nature of a confession, and that the prisoner had not been warned by the committing Magistrate as to his rights, and especially because the prisoner had not been informed that his failure to make any statement should not be used to his prejudice. The Solicitor insisted that the prisoner had been sufficiently put upon his guard, and that the statement was rather in the nature of a denial, than a confession.
The evidence as to the caution given by the Magistrate, was as follows: “When Jesse was arrested he was carried before J. T. Redfearn, J. P., who told him that he was charged with selling stolen corn, and that if he wanted to tell anything he could do so, but it was just as he chose.”
The statement, offered in evidence, was as as follows: “Jesse Rorie states that he sent one-half bushel of corn to Hornsboro', and sold corn only one time at Hornsboro', that being one bushel out of carts which he got from Jesse Duren. He says he might have said he did not send the corn to Redfearn's “by the boys.”
His Honor overruled the objection, and the prisoners excepted.
There was a verdict of guilty as to both of the defendants. Whereupon the defendants moved ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bram v. United States, 340
...to prove guilt, and could not therefore have been prejudicial, has been well stated by the supreme court of North Carolina (State v. Rorie [1876] 74 N. C. 148): 'But the state says this was a denial of guilt, and not a confession. It was a declaration which the state used to procure a to pr......
-
State v. Simpson
... ... an accused tended to prove guilt, and therefore was ... admissible, and then after procuring its admission claiming ... that it did not tend to prove guilt, and could not, ... therefore, have been prejudicial, has been well stated by the ... Supreme Court of North Carolina (State v. Rorie ... [1876] 74 N.C. 148): ... "'But ... the state says this was a denial of guilt and not a ... confession. It was a declaration which the state used to ... procure a conviction; and it is not for the state to say the ... declaration did not prejudice the prisoner's case. Why ... ...
-
State v. Clifford
...implicating him in the crime charged must be regarded as involuntary, and hence inadmissible. Whart. Crim. Ev. §§ 668, 669; State v. Rorie, 74 N. C. 148; 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 225, 226, and notes. The same rule would apply as to examinations had, as in this case, before a grand jury. Some of the......
-
State v. Clifford
... ... be construed as an evidence of his guilt, any responsive ... confessions implicating him in the crime charged must be ... regarded as involuntary, and hence inadmissible ... Wharton's Criminal Evidence, secs. 668, 669; State v ... Rorie, 74 N.C. 148; 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, secs. 225, ... 226, and notes. The same rule would apply as to examinations ... had, as in this case, before a grand jury. Some of the ... states, by statute, require magistrates conducting such ... examinations to admonish the prisoner as to the effect of ... ...
-
THE COURT AND THE SUSPECT: HUMAN FRAILTY, THE CALCULATING CRIMINAL, AND THE PENITENT IN THE INTERROGATION ROOM.
...of the prisoner's statement precludes the State from saying that it was not used to his prejudice." Id. at 542 (quoting State v. Rorie, 74 N.C. 148 (1876)). The Miranda Court would later make clear that its ruling applied even to statements that were arguably exculpatory. Miranda v. Arizona......