Whether the evidence, if true, proves the fact of threats or promises; whether the witnesses testifying to the court as to such facts are worthy of credit; and, in case of conflict, which of them is to be believed are questions of fact for the judge, and his decision upon them is not subject to review. Andrew, 61 (Phil. Law), 205.

The promise of a female witness to marry the prisoner on condition that he would confess his crime to her is not sufficient to exclude such confessions, since the promise is only of some colalteral advantage entirely disconnected from the charge. Hardee, 83-619.

Declarations of a prisoner made to the officer after his arrest, but not in reply to any charge made against him, are inadmissible. Reitz, 83-634. Where a slave was indicted for murder with two others as accessories, and they being all surrounded by an angry and threatening crowd of people and being in irons, the principal was struck in the face by one much excited, and bidden to tell all about it, and the defendant was bidden to tell all about it or the crowd would hang him, confessions made within an hour of these demonstrations, the crowd still continuing, were inadmissible. George, 50 (5 Jones), 233. Lawson, 61 (Phil.), 47.

Where confessions made on the preliminary trial before the justice are ruled out because the defendant had not been cautioned, subsequent confessions made shortly after the trial may be proven by the state. Needham, 78-474.

Where defendant was arrested by the sheriff and three other men, and others afterward joined the party, and while on their way to a magistrate the defendant made certain confessions, "no threats, or promises, or violence" being used, such confessions are admissible. Houston, 76–256.

Where defendant was the servant of the witness who had given him a coat and a drink some two weeks after the trial upon which the alleged perjury was committed, when the prisoner was not under arrest, and it was not proved whether or not he had been threatened with prosecution, and witness "didn't think he had held out any inducement," and defendant knew that witness and the prosecutor were intimate, a confession by the prisoner that he had sworn falsely, was admissible. Ricketts, 74-187.

Where one, who had from facts and circumstances, satisfied himself of the guilt of the prisoner, who was a slave and had previously been in the service of the witness, told him that he might as well tell all about it, for he (the witness) was satisfied; and again, being a little angry, said to the prisoner: "If you belonged to me I would make you tell," and repeated the first declaration several times, to which the prisoner each time made a denial of the charge, but afterwards, of his own accord, the prisoner took the witness aside and made a full disclosure, the confession is admissible. Patrick, 48 (3 Jones), 443.

Where a magistrate on examination of a prisoner accused of robbery of a watch and on whom the watch was found, told him "that unless he could account for the manner in which he became possessed of the watch he should be obliged to commit him to be tried for stealing it," this is no such threat or influence as would prevent their introduction of the subsequent confession of the accused, especially where the magistrate repeatedly warned him not to commit himself by any confession. Cowan, 29 (7 Ired.), 239.

Admissions of a crime made by a witness in the trial of a case against another may be used against such witness when indicted for the offense confessed. Simpson, 133–676.

The simple fact that defendant was in custody of an officer when he made a statement concerning the charge against him, does not render such statement incompetent. Smith, 138-700.

Declarations made to one who afterwards acted as attorney in fact before the committing magistrate are competent. Smith, 138–700.

A defendant on trial is entitled to show, in explanation of conduct amounting to a confession or raising a presumption against him, that he is weakminded, easily imposed upon, credulous or timid. Lewis, 136–627.

A confession made by a person under arrest, to an officer who has him in custody, and who tells him that he, the officer, "had already worked up the case, and he had as well tell all about it," is not admissible. Davis, 125–

612.

Confessions made by a prisoner in jail may be received in evidence against him if not unduly obtained. Jefferson, 28 (6 Ired.), 305.

When a prisoner is advised to tell nothing but the truth, or even when what is said to him has no tendency to induce him to make an untrue statement, his confession, in either case, is admissible, whether made to an officer or a private individual. Harrison, 115-706.

WHEN QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT FOUND BY THE JUDGE REVIEWABLE. Whether a prisoner's confessions are voluntary or induced by hope or fear, is a question of fact to be decided by the judge, and his finding is conclusive. What constitutes such hope or fear is a matter of law, which is reviewable upon exception taken below. Vann, 82-631.

CONFESSIONS—WHEN ADMISSIBLE.-The fact that the committing magistrate told the defendant, who was accused of robbing a person of his watch, "that unless he could account for the manner in which he became possessed of the watch, he should be obliged to commit him to be tried for stealing it," does not amount to such a threat or influence as will prevent the admission of the subsequent confessions of defendant, especially as the magistrate repeatedly warned him not to commit himself by any confession. Cowan, 29 (7 Ired.), 239.

CONFESSIONS AFTER CAUTION RECEIVED.—When one charged with crime has received a proper caution, confessions afterwards made are admissible though he may formerly have made confessions which were extorted by threats, or induced by promises. Scoates, 50 (5 Jones), 420.

Where confessions had been illegally exacted, and the accused was told that they had been illegally and wrongfully extracted and could not be used against him, and he was fully cautioned against making further confessions, it was held that voluntary ocnfessions subsequently made were admissible. Gregory, 50 (5 Jones), 315.

Confessions made while in custody, but after being cautioned not to answer criminating questions, are admissible. Patterson, 68-292.

The prisoner was a witness upon the coroner's inquest, and denied all knowledge of the alleged homicide, but within three or four hours afterwards was arrested as one of the guilty parties, and then proposed to tell all she knew about the homicide, and accordingly gave material evidence against herself: Held, that such confessions were voluntary and admissible. Wright, 61 (Phil. Law), 486.

Where confessions are extorted from a prisoner, and afterwards, not being actuated by the influence that had elicited such confessions, he makes other confessions of his guilt, the latter confessions are admissible. Fisher, 51 (6 Jones), 478.

A prisoner in jail said to a fellow-prisoner, "If you will not tell on me I will tell you something." The other replied that he would not tell, but if he did it would make no difference, for one criminal could not testify against another. The former then added, "I want to know what to do," to which the other replied that if he knew the circumstances he could tell him what to do: Held, that confessions of murder made thereupon by the former to the latter were admissible. Mitchell, 61 (Phil. Law), 447.

The prisoner was charged with infanticide, and, during a post-mortem examination of the body of the infant, seemed very much excited. The exami

nation being finished, and the verdict of the jury having been rendered against her, the prisoner, in answer to questions put by the foreman of the jury, confessed her crime. "The coroner cautioned her after the first question was put, telling her not to answer, it was none of his business and that her answers might be used against her": Held, that the caution came too late, and the confession having been made under circumstances of such mental distress, was inadmissible. Matthews, 66–106.

The prisoner made outery that deceased was accidentally burned to death, and claimed that in attempting to put out the flames she burnt one of her hands, but the examining physician testified on the coroner's inquest that deceased was not burned before, but after death, there being no serum in the blisters. The coroner then compelled the prisoner to unwrap her hand, and there was no indication of any burn upon it: Held, that evidence of the condition of prisoner's hand at the inquest was admissible on the trial, since any circumstance tending to show the guilt of the accused may be proved, though it is brought to light by a declaration inadmissible per se as having been obtained by improper influence. Distinguishing State v. Jacobs, 5 Jones, 259. Garrett, 71-85.

Confessions, whether extorted or not, that relate a number of circumstances, all of which are proved to exist by other testimony, are admissible. Moore, 2 (1 Hay.), 556.

The fact that an officer pointed his pistol at the accused to effect his arrest, advising him to give up, does not render incompetent the subsequent admissions of the prisoner, especially where no threats or promises were made to induce them, and the conduct of the prisoner showed that he had no actual fear of violence. DeGraff, 113-688.

The fact that a prisoner is kept tied during his examination before the justice does not of itself constitute a valid objection to the admission of confessions made before the magistrate, unless it appeared that he was tied so as to produce pain or to tend to induce or extort from him such confession. Rogers, 112-874.

Confessions will not be excluded on the ground that defendant did not have time to advise with counsel before making such statements, where it does not appear that defendant asked and was denied time and opportunity to do so. Rogers, 112–874.

no

ABSENCE OF WRITTEN EXAMINATION MUST BE SHOWN.-To authorize the introduction of parol evidence as to confessions of a prisoner taken before an examining magistrate it must appear affirmatively that there was examination recorded as required by the statute. Mathews, 66—106. Confessions before a justice of the peace may be admitted in evidence though not reduced to writing. Irwin, 2 (1 Hay.), 112, (130). Parish, 44 (Bus.), 239.

Confessions made before the coroner without caution from him are inadmissible. Matthews, 66-106.

Confessions made in jail are competent if neither threats nor inducements are made. Flemming, 130-688.

Where the prisoner denies knowing anything about the killing, such statements do not amount to a confession, and are not inadmissible on that ground. McDowell, 129-523.

Confessions made by one defendant, not in the presence of the other, is competent against the one making them, if the jury be instructed not to consider them as against the other defendant. Williams, 129–581.

The finding of the court that a confession was voluntary is not reviewable,

if there is evidence to support the finding. Page, 127-512.

Admissions made by a defendant on trial are admissible against him on a subsequent trial if he was properly cautioned. Simpson, 133-676.

Confessions made before a justice of the peace are admissible though not reduced to writing, since they are not to be excluded simply because the justice failed to do his duty. Irwin, 2—113.

A naked confession, unattended with circumstances, is not sufficient to convict of a capital crime. Long, 2-456.

But a confession that relates a number of circumstances which the prisoner could not tell, except as perpetrator of the crime, are sufficient. Moore, 2 (1 Hay.), 483.

Confessions made by defendant on his examination before a magistrate are competent though the examination was not reduced to writing as required. Parish, 44-239.

But in such case it must appear that the magistrate did not take the examination down in writing, or that it is lost. Parish, 44–239.

The fact that a prisoner was tied when he made confessions is not sufficient to exclude them, since the officer had a right to tie him. Sanders, 84-731. Confessions are prima facie voluntary and admissible in evidence unless the party against whom they are offered allege and show facts authorizing a legal inference to the contrary. Sanders, 84-730.

Where no inducements were offered and no threats made, and the prisoner after his arrest was treated kindly, and did not seem to be excited or afraid, and began the conversation with those who arrested him on the way to jail, the fact that he was tied and had been shot at by those who arrested him and two men were in the wagon with him and three or four others following, does not render confessions made under such circumstances inadmissible. Horner, 139-603.

Confessions are not incompetent simply because made to an officer after being arrested. Jones, 145.

Evidence of confessions made by the prisoner, after he was arrested was competent, where the court found that no promise was made to induce him to make the confessions, and that no threat was used to extort them and there is nothing to indicate that they were not entirely voluntary. Bohanon, 142-596.

A statement made to an officer is not incompetent simply because the officer had the defendant in custody at the time. Exum, 138-600.

DANGER OF CONFESSIONS.-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. Davis, 125-614; Roberts, 12-259.

INFLUENCE PRESUMED TO CONTINUE.-Where a prisoner has once been induced to confess through hope or fear, confessions subsequently made are presumed to proceed from the same influence until the contrary be shown by clear proof. Roberts, 14 (3 Dev.), 259.

If promises or threats have been used to induce a confession it must be made to appear that their influence has been entirely done away with before subsequent confessions can be deemed voluntary and admissible. Drake, 113— 624.

The admissions of guilt of one who had, prior to making such admissions, been induced by fear or hope to confess himself guilty, can not be used against him unless it be shown by irrefragable evidence that the motives inducing the first confessions had ceased to operate. Lawhorne, 66-638.

Where a party has been induced to confess through a promise of immunity from prosecution, in the absence of clear proof that such inducement had ceased to operate, his confessions made thereafter are inadmissible. Lawhorne, 66-638.

PAROL EVIDENCE OF CONFESSIONS BEFORE MAGISTRATE, WHEN ADMISSIBLE.— Before parol evidence of a prisoner's confessions made before the committing magistrate can be admitted, it must appear that the magistrate did not take the examination in writing, or that the same is lost. Parish, 44 (Bush.), 239. Where parol evidence of a prisoner's confessions before the committing magistrate is objected to in general terms, and the solicitor, supposing the ground of objection to be that they were not voluntary, proceeds to remove that objection, and the confessions are received, the prisoner is not precluded from insisting in the supreme court that there was no evidence that the prisoner's examination was not reduced to writing, or that the same was lost. Parish, 44 (Busb.), 239.

CONVICTION ON CONFESSION ALONE.-One may be convicted on his own voluntary confessions alone. Cowan, 29 (7 Ired.), 239.

HOW COMPETENCY DETERMINED.-In determining the competency of a confession the true inquiry is whether the inducement offered was such as to lead the prisoner to suppose it would be better to confess himself guilty of a crime he did not commit. Harrison, 115–706.

APPEALS TO SUPERSTITION.-Upon the trial of a prisoner for murder of her husband, a witness testified that he, as a detective, representing himself as a laborer, went to the house of the prisoner, who told him she was in great trouble, because some one had killed her husband, and that she knew who did it. He then said to her, "You had better tell me all about it. I am a right good old monger doctor. I can work roots and gummer folks, and if you will tell me all about it I can give you something so you can not be caught." Thereupon she told witness that she procured another to kill her husband: Held, that the confession was admissible, since the inducement offered appealed only to her superstition, but was not a temptation to lead her, if innocent, to pretend that she was guilty. Harrison, 115-—706.

FACTS LEARNED IN CONSEQUENCE OF INADMISSIBLE CONFESSIONS.-While the declarations and admissions of a defendant, made after threats or inducements held out to him, are as a general rule incompetent, yet facts ascertained in consequence of such declarations or admissions, and declarations connected with and explaining such facts, are admissible. Winston, 116-990.

CONFESSIONS UNDER Arrest.—Confessions made by the prisoner while under arrest are competent if no threats or inducements are offered. Conley, 130

683.

DEFENDANT'S ACTS IN CONSEQUENCE OF INDUCEMENTS.-It was competent for a constable who had arrested the defendant to testify that, after he told defendant that he knew about the stolen goods and that it would be best for him to tell, the defendant showed him where the goods were hidden. Winston, 116-990.

WHEN CONFESSIONS NOT ADMISSIBLE FOR WANT OF CAUTION.-Where defendant, on his preliminary examination, is told by the justice that he is charged with selling stolen corn, and if he wants to tell anything he could do so, but it is just as he pleases, a statement then made is inadmissible for want of proper caution, and the fact that such statement is rather in the nature of a denial makes no difference. Rorie, 75-148.

CONFESSION TO OFFICER.-Defendant confessed to the officer who had him under arrest that he had stolen the money under a promise that if he would confess and compromise the matter he would be released. This confession was objected to and ruled out. A day or two afterwards, on his examination before a magistrate, he asked to be sworn as a witness in his own behalf, and after having been properly cautioned, stated that he had made the confession under the belief that he could compromise it and be released, but that he had not stolen the money: Held, that his statement under oath before the magistrate was competent against him. Distinguishing State v. Lawhorn, 66-638. Ellis, 97-447.