State v. Stefanoff
| Decision Date | 02 May 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 183,183 |
| Citation | 174 S.E. 411,206 N. C. 443 |
| Parties | STATE . v. STEFANOFF et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
.
Appeal from Superior Court, Alexander County; Finley, Judge.
Mike Stefanoff and another were convicted of murder in the first degree, and they appeal.
No error.
Criminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendants, Mike Stefanoff and
E. E. Black, and two others, in one count, with conspiracy to rob the Merchants' & Farmers' Bank of Taylorsville, and, in a second count, with the murder of T. C. Barnes committed in the attempted perpetration of said robbery.
Verdict as to the two defendants on trial: Guilty of murder in the first degree (as shown by return to writ of certiorari).
Judgment as to each defendant on trial: Death by electrocution.
The prisoners appeal, assigning errors.
Trivette & Holshouser, of Boone, J. F. Jordan, of Wilkesboro, and F. J. McDufiie, of North Wilkesboro, for appellants.
Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and A. A.
F. Seawell, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
The record discloses that on Thursday, July 27, 1933, the defendants, Mike Stefanoff and R. E. Black, and two others not yet taken, planned to rob the Merchants' & Farmers' Bank of Taylorsville. The conspiracy took place at the home of Mike Stefanoff in North Wilkesboro. The four conspirators drove to Taylorsville the next day, Friday, in a Chevrolet sedan, looked over the situation, but presently desisted from their purpose upon seeing a number of policemen on the street. They returned again the following morning, Saturday, in the same automobile, and entered the bank, not together but one at a time, so as to give the appearance that they were strangers. Stefanoff asked the cashier, T. C. Barnes, to change a quarter, and as the latter turned to get the change, two of the bandits presented their guns, and, in the melee and firing which ensued, they shot the cashier to death.
Both of the defendants, after apprehension and incarceration, confessed their part in the attempted robbery and homicide. The admission of these confessions, made, as they were, while the defendants were under arrest, forms the basis of a number of exceptions. It is elementary that a voluntary confession is admissible in evidence against the one making it; an involuntary confession is not. A confession is voluntary in law when --and only when--it was in fact voluntarily made. State v. Jones, 203 N. C. 3747 166 S. E. 163.
Where there is no duress, threat, or inducement, and the court found there was none here, the fact that the defendants were under arrest at the time the confessions were made does not ipso facto render them incompetent. State v. Newsome, 196 N. 0. 552, 143 S. E. 1S7; State v. Dtrakeford, 162 N. C. 667, 78 S. E. 308. "We are not aware of any decision which holds a confession, otherwise voluntary, inadmissible because of the number of officers present at the time it was made; nor has the diligence of counsel discovered any." State v. Gray, 192 N. O. 504, 135 S. E. 535.
The competency of the confessions was a matter for the judge. State v. Whitener, 191 N. C. 659, 132 S. E. 60& He ruled them admissible. No error in this respect has been made to appear on the record.
The defendant Mike Stefanoff interposed the further defense of mental irresponsibility or insanity. State v. Keaton, 205 N. C. 607, 172 S. E. 179. He offered evidence tending to show that he is suffering from dementia prsecox, but the jury found against him on this plea. State v. Jones, supra. His objections that nonexperts were allowed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Small
...was approved by this Court as a "correct proposition of law." See State v. Bell, 205 N.C. 225, 171 S.E. 50 (1933); State v. Stefanoff, 206 N.C. 443, 174 S.E. 411 (1934); State v. Bennett, 226 N.C. 82, 36 S.E.2d 708 (1946). In each of these cases, however, all the defendants were in fact pre......
-
State v. Moore
... ... question for the trial court, State v. Andrew, 61 ... N.C. 205, to be determined in the manner pointed out in ... State v. Whitener, 191 N.C. 659, 132 S.E. 603. The ... court's ruling thereon will not be disturbed, if ... supported by any competent evidence. State v ... Stefanoff, 206 N.C. 443, 174 S.E. 411; State v ... Christy, 170 N.C. 772, 87 S.E. 499; State v ... Page, 127 N.C. 512, 37 S.E. 66; State v. Gosnell, supra ... In ... other words, to state it compendiously, the presumption that ... a subsequent confession was brought about by the ... ...
-
State v. Litteral Ct Al
...213 N.C. 299, 195 S.E. 819; State v. Exum, 213 N.C. 16, 195 S.E. 7; State v. Caldwell, 212 N.C. 484, 193 S.E. 716; State v. Stefa-noff, 206 N.C. 443, 174 S.E. 411; State v. Rodman, 188 N.C. 720, 125 S.E. 486; State v. Newsome, 195 N.C. 552, 143 S.E. 187. The defendant Litteral tendered Dr. ......
-
State v. Crawford, 361
...226 N.C. 82, 36 S.E.2d 708; State v. Thompson, 224 N.C. 661, 32 S.E.2d 24; State v. Wagstaff, 219 N.C. 15, 12 S.E.2d 657; State v. Stefanoff, 206 N.C. 443, 174 S.E. 411; State v. Gray, 192 N.C. 594, 135 S.E. 535; Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 81 S.C.t. 1860, 1870-1874, 6 L.Ed.2d 103......