Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

109 N.C. 876

State v. Whitfield

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 15, 1891

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1891-09-15

This was an indictment for larceny of two oxen, tried at the Pall Term, 1891, of the Superior Court of Pitt County, before Connor, J. Other testimony having been offered tending to prove the guilt of defendant, the Solicitor was allowed to show that after the defendant had been arrested on a Justice’s warrant and committed to jail to await a trial upon the charge upon which he was then arraigned, be was taken by virtue of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, under…

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1915

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-09-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Avery, J.

¶1(after stating the facts): The facts that a defendant was in arrest and secured by a handcuff .placed on one hand and connected by a chain with the buggy in which he was riding in company with the officer, who had in his pocket the warrant under which he had been committed to jail on a charge of larceny, do not of themselves constitute duress so as to exclude any material declaration made to the officer in reference to the commission of the crime of which he is accused. Unless, in such case, it appeared to the Court that the defendant was induced to make the confession *878or declaration by some advantageous offer or by threats or actual force, by arousing hope or exciting fear in his mind, it was not error to admit the testimony of the officer. State v. Sanders, 84 N. C., 728; State v. Bishop, 98 N. C., 773; State v. Graham, 74 N. C., 646; State v. Efler, 85 N. C., 585; State v. Howard, 92 N. C., 772.

¶2There was no error. The judgment below must be

¶3Affirmed.

/109/nc/876 · .json · Public domain