State v. . Roberts

12 N.C. 259
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJuly 5, 1827
StatusPublished
Cited by75 cases

This text of 12 N.C. 259 (State v. . Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. . Roberts, 12 N.C. 259 (N.C. 1827).

Opinions

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 *Page 155 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. 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 him 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 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Lynch
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2020
State v. Johnson
821 S.E.2d 822 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2018)
State v. Duff
615 S.E.2d 373 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
State v. Carmon
576 S.E.2d 730 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)
State v. Thompson
560 S.E.2d 568 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)
State v. Cabe
524 S.E.2d 828 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
State v. Annadale
383 S.E.2d 679 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1989)
State v. Marshall
374 S.E.2d 874 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1988)
State v. Richardson
320 S.E.2d 900 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1984)
State v. Church
315 S.E.2d 331 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1984)
State v. Jackson
304 S.E.2d 134 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)
State v. Rook
283 S.E.2d 732 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1981)
State v. Small
239 S.E.2d 429 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1977)
State v. Thomas
239 S.E.2d 281 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1977)
State v. Raines
226 S.E.2d 546 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1976)
State v. Carey
218 S.E.2d 387 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1975)
State v. Pollock
206 S.E.2d 382 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1974)
State v. Muse
185 S.E.2d 214 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
State v. Muse
181 S.E.2d 207 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1971)
State v. Smith
174 S.E.2d 676 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 N.C. 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-roberts-nc-1827.