Case ID: nc_61/html/0486-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Battle, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE STATE v. REUBEN WRIGHT and MINTA HAIRSTON.
    Where one who had been sworn as a witness upon a coroner’s inquest, and denied all knowledge of the alleged homicide, within three or four-hours afterwards was arrested as one of the guilty parties, and then proposed to tell what she knew about the homicide, and accordingly gave material evidence against herself: held that the confessions were voluntary, and competent evidence afterwards upon her trial for murder.
    
      (State v. Jefferson, 6 Ire., 305; State v. Gregory, 5 Jo., 315; State v. Scates, id. 420; State v. Fisher, 6 Jo., 478; State v. Young, Wins., 126, cited and approved.)
    Murder, tried at Fall Terra 1867 of the Superior Court of Stokes, before Mitchell, J.
    
    The following is the caseras made out by the Judge below.
    The defendants were indicted for the murder of Silas Hairston, (colored) husband of the defendant Minta. The body of said Silas was discovered in the river on the sixth day after he was murdered. On the next day the coroner held an inquest over the body, and in the course of his investigations concerning the death called, swore and examined a number of witnesses, among whom was the defendant Minta, who on her examination disclaimed all knowledge of It. The house in which the deceased and Minta lived was about half a mile from the spot where the inquest was held. About three or four hours after her examination, a search of this house disclosed matters that seriously implicated Minta in the murder, and she was taken into custody at the house of a Mr. Adams under whose control as manager of the plantation she then was.
    After she had been under restraint about an hour, she said that she wished “to tell about the murder of her husband.” Mr. Adams requested one or two of the jurors to attend, and she was permitted to make a statement which contained material evidence of her guilt.
    The State having proposed to give in evidence this confession, it was objected to on the ground that she had been sworn and examined on the inquest, and at the time of the statement was under arrest. The evidence was admitted and prisoner excepted.
    Verdict, guilty; Rule for a New Trial discharged; Judg- • merit and Appeal.
    No counsel, for the prisoners.
    
      Atto. Gen. and Batchelor, contra.
    
    It does not appear that the confession was not voluntary. 8. v. Goioan, 7 Ire., 239; 8. v. Patrick, 3 Jon., 443; 8. v. Fisher, 6 Jon., 478.
    It is conceded that the examination of the accused if taken on oath is not admissible. 8. v. Young, 1 Winst., 126; Roscoe. 55, 1 Gr. Ev., s. 225; but this is not so where the person was examined as a witness against another. 8. v. Broughton, 7 Ir., 96; 1 Gr. Ev., s. 225, Roscoe 45, 46, 55.
    Here the confession was not upon oath; if her examination before the coroner was admitted, it does not appear to have been objected to. 8. v. Fisher, supra and cases cited.
   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 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.