State v. Moore, 2 N.C. 556, 1 Hayw. 556 (1797)

April 1797 · North Carolina Superior Court

2 N.C. 556, 1 Hayw. 556

State v. Moore.

Coi\fe!-sÍ!.ns whether extorted, or not, that relate a number of cir-cunt l-tuces, all of which are proved by other testimony actually to ex,..a, are adrnisiible against the prisoner.

Indictment for murder, and not guilty pleaded. Upon trial, if appeared the body was found near Wadcsborough; and as 'lie. deceased and Moore were seen together a tew days before, fh" suspicions of the neighborhood fell upon ititn. Two men pursued Inns, and in the neighborhood win re he resided, met him its an old field, returniiighome from the house of a neighbor. 'They tied him, and ordered him to produce the deceased’s mosiey ; hr produced some immediately, asid promised to carry tls- m to the place where the residue was. He carried them into a swamp, and shewed (he midue. They struck him when they first met him, for denying that he had killed the deceased. Upois which he,owned it, and said he struck hilts with a hickory dish, staudiisg ots his left side as the deceased rode along the road ; that he dragged the body out of the road, and left the club ly ing by il ; that he covered the body with brush, iss a place where tin* road formerly rati, about ten or twelve yards from the prtsent road. These circumstances were all now proven to be true, and actually to have existed as lie then represented them.. He promised to show'them where the saddle-bags and deaths of the deceased were ; and about four miles from too place where the body was found, he pointed to a log lying tint far from the road, and said tip' bags wre in ihatj the witness went and found the. bags there, and the deaths of the deceased, and produced them now in court | and they were proven in c»urt, to he the bags and deaths of The deceased.

The prisoner’s counsel objected, that there was noevi-. deuce in the present case to affect the prisoner, without the aid of his roufes-ion. Tim money, the dub and the bags, are only of weight, as they correspond with the confession ; and by that means prove a consciousness and knowledge of the principal fact, whence is inferred (he guilt of the prisoner. The confession in the piosetó ins ¡tire, ought not to be received as any part of the evidence against the prisoner — it was extorted by violence, am) ought not to have bren heard ; and ha' ing been beard improperly, it ought to be rejected, and then there is no proof against him.

PercuHam

A confession extorted and uncorroborated bj rimnnstances, weighs nothing ; but a confession wlie-tlier extorted or not, that relates a number of cirrumstan-, t:es which the prisoner could not well be acquainted with but as perpetrator of the crime, all which circumstances are proved by other testimony, to have actually existed, is such testimony as should be left to the consideration of a jury. That is the nature of the confession iti the present case ; and upon socli testimony, if the jury are satisfied with its truth and sufficiency, they may find the prisoner guilty. They should be very cautious however, and examine every circumstance with the most critical nicety before they do so. The jury found him guilty, and he had judgment of death.

Note. — In this case, the saddle bag's were pointed to voluntarily_ Also, part of the money produced, before any blow given.

Note —Vide 1 Phil. on Evid, (3d Am. Edit.) 89. State v. Long, ante 455. State v. Roberts, 1 Dev. Rep. 259.