{
  "id": 8629047,
  "name": "STATE v. CLYDE LIVINGSTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Livingston",
  "decision_date": "1932-06-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "809",
  "last_page": "810",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 N.C. 809"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617074
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0649-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 S. E., 187",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N. C., 552",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630764
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0552-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N. C., 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688595
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0259-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 N. C., 443",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2086704
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/48/0443-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 N. C., 638",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11278621
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/66/0638-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 N. C., 106",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276643
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/66/0106-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N. C., 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692807
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/70/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N. C., 325",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8694622
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/72/0325-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N. C., 593",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 S. E., 198",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N. C., 612",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274905
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/125/0612-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 S. E., 136",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N. C., 603",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653249
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/139/0603-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 S. E., 353",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 N. C., 466",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11253735
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/145/0466-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 S. E., 603",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 659",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630901
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0659-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 309,
    "char_count": 3956,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.020398611741138e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8538499734926631
    },
    "sha256": "b4e02c57f82efa5a0d652d7750ec0b095446c3c490225a770d06da5cd4aa375c",
    "simhash": "1:6abfc6bf48ce597f",
    "word_count": 684
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:17.445618+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CLYDE LIVINGSTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stact, C. J.\nThe confession of the defendants made under the inducement that the chances were \u201cit would be lighter on them\u201d if they would say they got the property, coupled with the remark of the officer, \u201cit looks like you had about as well tell it,\u201d must be regarded as arising out of circumstances which render it involuntary, and, therefore, incompetent as evidence against appellant. S. v. Myers, ante, 381; S. v. Whitener, 191 N. C., 659, 132 S. E., 603; S. v. Jones, 145 N. C., 466, 59 S. E., 353; S. v. Horner, 139 N. C., 603, 52 S. E., 136.\nAlmost the identical question here presented, certainly the same in principle, was decided in S. v. Davis, 125 N. C., 612, 34 S. E., 198, S. v. Drake, 82 N. C., 593, S. v. Dildy, 72 N. C., 325, S. v. Whitfield, 70 N. C., 356, S. v. Matthews, 66 N. C., 106, S. v. Lawhorne, 66 N. C., 638.\nA free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit, because it is presumed to flow from the strongest sense of guilt, but a confession wrung from the mind by the flattery of hope, or by the torture of fear, comes in such questionable shape as to merit no consideration. S. v. Patrick, 48 N. C., 443.\nSpeaking to the subject in S. v. Roberts, 12 N. C., 259, Henderson, J., said: \u201cConfessions are either voluntary or involuntary. They are called voluntary when made neither under the influence of hope or fear, but are attributable to that love of truth which predominates in the breast of every man, not operated upon by other motives more powerful with him, and which, it is said, in the perfectly good man cannot be countervailed. These confessions are the highest evidences of truth, even in cases affecting life. But it is said, and said with truth, that confessions induced by hope or extorted by fear are, of all kinds of evidence, the least to be relied on, and are therefore entirely to be rejected.\u201d\nVoluntary confessions are admissible in evidence against the party making them; involuntary confessions are not. A confession is voluntary in law when \u2014 and only when \u2014 it was in fact voluntarily made. S. v. Newsome, 195 N. C., 552, 143 S. E., 187.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stact, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Sea-well for the State.",
      "Trivette & Holshouser and Cranor & McElwee for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CLYDE LIVINGSTON.\n(Filed 15 June, 1932.)\nCriminal Law G 1 \u2014 Confession in this case held involuntary and incompetent.\nOnly voluntary confessions are admissible in evidence, and a confession is voluntary only when it is in fact voluntarily made, and where after the arrest of the defendants and the measuring of their shoes and tracks at the scene of the crime they are told that \u201cit would be lighter on them\u201d to confess and that \u201cit looks like you had about as well tell it,\u2019\u2019 whereupon the defendants confess to the crime charged: Held,, their confession was involuntary and its admission in evidence constitutes reversible error.\nAppeal by defendant, Clyde Livingston, from Harwood, Special Judge, at November Special Term, 1931, of 'Wilkes.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant, and another, with breaking and entering the storehouse of one M. J. Parsons, other than burglariously, with intent to steal the goods and chattels of the said owner to the value of $25.00, etc., contrary to the provisions of O. S., 4235.\nThe defendants were arrested and after having had their shoes measured to ascertain whether they corresponded with the tracks at the store (S. v. McLeod, 198 N. C., 649), the township constable and Mr. Parsons told them that their shoes fitted the tracks, \u201cit-looks like you had about'as well tell it,\u201d and \u201cthe chances were if they would tell they got it (the stolen property) it would be lighter on them.\u201d The boys talked together a little and then said: \u201cWe got some stuff.\u201d (Objection; overruled; exception.)\nFrom an adverse verdict and judgment of 18 months on the roads, the defendant, Clyde Livingston, appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Sea-well for the State.\nTrivette & Holshouser and Cranor & McElwee for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0809-01",
  "first_page_order": 875,
  "last_page_order": 876
}