State v. . Wright

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Wright

61 N.C. 486

DecidedJanuary 5, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 61 N.C. 486 (State v. . Wright) 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. . Wright, 61 N.C. 486 (N.C. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

Battle, J.

No bill of exceptions has been filed on behalf of the prisoner, Reuben Wright, and, as we have not been able to discover any error in the record as to him, it must be so certified to the Superior Court for the county of Stokes.

On the bill of exceptions of the other prisoner, Minta Hairston, the only ground upon which a new trial was moved lor, was that her confessions were improperly admitted in evidence against her. It is contended on her behalf that her confessions were not voluntary, because she had been *488 previously examined on oath, and was under arrest at the time when she made them. In. reply to this, it is said by the counsel who appears for the State that, in her examination before the coroner, she not only said nothing to criminate herself, but disclaimed all knowledge of the transaction and her statement afterwards appears to have been entirely free and voluntary. They are certainly to be taken as such, unless her being under arrest has made them otherwise. That it has not appears from many authorities. Among other cases, see State v. Jefferson, 6 Ire., 305; State v. Gregory, 5 Jon., 315; State v. Scates, Ib. 420; State v. Fisher, 6 Jon., 478. See also State v. Young, 1 Wins. 126, and the authorities there referred, to.

It must be certified that we find no error in the record as to this prisoner also.

Per Curiam. No error.

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

Battle, J.

No bill of exceptions has been filed on behalf of the prisoner, Reuben Wright, and, as we have not been able to discover any error in the record as to him, it must be so certified to the Superior Court for the county of Stokes.

On the bill of exceptions of the other prisoner, Minta Hairston, the only ground upon which a new trial was moved lor, was that her confessions were improperly admitted in evidence against her. It is contended on her behalf that her confessions were not voluntary, because she had been *488 previously examined on oath, and was under arrest at the time when she made them. In. reply to this, it is said by the counsel who appears for the State that, in her examination before the coroner, she not only said nothing to criminate herself, but disclaimed all knowledge of the transaction and her statement afterwards appears to have been entirely free and voluntary. They are certainly to be taken as such, unless her being under arrest has made them otherwise. That it has not appears from many authorities. Among other cases, see State v. Jefferson, 6 Ire., 305; State v. Gregory, 5 Jon., 315; State v. Scates, Ib. 420; State v. Fisher, 6 Jon., 478. See also State v. Young, 1 Wins. 126, and the authorities there referred, to.

It must be certified that we find no error in the record as to this prisoner also.

Per Curiam. No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 N.C. 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wright-nc-1868.