State v. . Garrett

71 N.C. 85

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: June 5, 1874
• Status: Published

Opinion

ByNum, J.

The prisoner objected to the admissibility of the evidence as to the condition of her hand and relied upon the ease of the State v. Jacobs, 5 Jones, 259.

The distinction between that and our case is that in Jacobs'1 case, tl e prisoner himself, on trial, was compelled to exhibit himself to the jury, that they might see that he was within the prohibited degree of color, thus he was forced to become a witness against himself. This was held to be error.

In our case, not the prisoners, but the witnesses, were called to prove what they saw upon inspecting the prisoner’s hand, although that inspection was obtained by intimidation.

The prisoner had alleged that she had her hand burned in endeavoring to extinguish the fire upon the deceased, and at the Coroner’s inquest she carried her hand wrapped up in a handkerchief and thus concealed it from view.^éhe was made to unwrap and show her hand to the physician, which thus exposed, upon examination, showed no indication of a burn. It was evidently a fraud adopted to give countenance and support to her story, and the Coroner was justified in exposing a trick upon the public justice of the country.

The later cases are uniform to the point that a circumstance tending to show guilt may be proved, although it was brought to light by declaration, inadmissible, jpe»’ se, as having been obtained by improper influence. Arch. Orina. Pl., 131, and note by "Waterman, State v. Johnson, 67 N. C. Rep., 55. Familiar illustrations are where the accused is, by force, made to put his foot in a track, or allow the foot to be measured, where he is, by duress, compelled to produce stolen goods, or to disclose their hiding place, and they are there found. In these cases thq facts thus brought to light are competent evidence, though the declarations of the accused, made at the time, are excluded as having been obtained by improper influence.

We have carefully examined the whole reeord, and we find no defect therein.

There is no' error. This will be certified to the Court below that further proceedings be there had, according to law.

Pee Cueiam. Judgment affinned.