¶1 The defendant was indicted for larceny and receiving stolen goods of one Horton. It was proved that Horton’s store had been robbed and burned. There was no evidence identifying the goods alleged to- have been stolen, and the prosecution failed on the first count. There was no evidence relied on by the State, except the declarations of the defendant, to sustain the second count. The competency of these declarations is the only question presented.
¶2 The defendant was arrested by J. II. Conrad, and whilst in his custody, Conrad said to him: “That he had worked up the case, and he had as well tell all about it.” The defendant denied any knowledge of the alleged stolen articles, but after a while said that another person brought the goods to bis house. The house referred to was his mother’s house.
¶3 An officer, with authority to arrest, discharges his duty by simply making the arrest, and it is no- part of his duties to *614 provoke a prisoner to make any statement. The genius of our free institutions provides that admissions of a party should not be used against him unless made voluntarily. The common law looks with jealousy on such confessions, for, if made under the influence of hope or fear-, they furnish no test of the truth of the matter. They may be true, and they may be inspired by either hope or fear that such statements will be better for him in the near future.
¶4 “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 emotion of hope or fear ought to be rejected.” State v. Roberts, 12 N. C., 259.
¶5 The language that, “I had worked up the case, and he had as well tell all about it,” was well calcuated to agitate the mind of the defendant, an ignorant man, then a prisoner, and cause him to conclude that a prompt admission, true or false, would mitigate his punishment.
¶6 This case closely resembles State v. Whitfield, 70 N. C., 356, where the language of the prosecutor was: “I believe you are guilty; if you are, you had better say so; if you are not, you had better say that:” Held, that the confession was made under the influence of hope or fear, or both, and was inadmissible.
¶7 In 1 Greenleaf Evidence “Confessions,” the general question, is analyzed, with cited cases, and the principles above stated run through the chapter. He says: “It should be recollected that the mind of the prisoner himself is oppressed by the calamity of his situation, and that he is often influenced by motives of hope or fear to make an untrue confession.”
¶8 The fact that the defendant at first denied, and after a while confessed, shows that some influence was operating on his mind. Roth statements could not be true.
¶9*615 We are of opinion that tbe confession, under tbe circumstances, was inadmissible.
¶10 Error.