{
  "id": 8696925,
  "name": "STATE v. J. C. PARISH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Parish",
  "decision_date": "1878-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "492",
  "last_page": "495",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 N.C. 492"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 376,
    "char_count": 7312,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.349410823568316e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4409990698299399
    },
    "sha256": "0eb9cfe76eb4f7aa0105d03a6ac011f8a80adc72deb0a3b4b757885efcce8682",
    "simhash": "1:212b26b9d86f84f3",
    "word_count": 1342
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:04:18.240606+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. J. C. PARISH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThe confessions of a defendant are admissible when they were voluntary, and inadmissible when they were not. But how can we look into the defendant\u2019s heart and see how it was? \"We have to look at the circumstances of each case and at human nature as we know it to be, and judge what is reasonable about it.\nThe defendant was charged in his neighborhood with being a common thief. Notice had been given for a neighborhood meeting. They were to meet on Saturday. Before Saturday came the defendant went to one of the neighbors who was engaged in the movement, and talked to him about it, and denied that he had had any thing to do with the stealing, which had been going on. The neighbor told him he would let him know about it next week. On Saturday the neighbors met, a dozen or more, \u201cto consult as to what wrae to be done with the defendant about his stealing so much\u201d \u2014 to use the language of the witness \u2014 \u201cand they concluded that if he would leave the State and never return they would not interrupt him.\u201d And they asked oneof their number to tell him of it. And on Monday following the defendant fled, leaving his wife and children.\nNow, what did the defendant have a right to apprehend from that public meeting? Not a prosecution, because that was not the way to set it on foot. And besides it was not for one, or any particular stealing, but for \u201c stealing so much.\u201d They had adjudged him to be a common thief, out of the reach of the law, and they meant to deal with him under a law of their own. He would have known what to expect if prosecuted in Court, \u2014 conviction and punishment if guilty, or acquittal if innocent. But they had already convicted him by common consent of \u201cstealing so much\u201d and the punishment which they meant to inflict was not prescribed in any book. And nothing is so terrific to brute or man, as the mad pursuit of his own kind. If he had not left on Monday and the neighbors had met again and arrested him, or \u201c interrupted him,\u201d as their language was, would any one suppose he was in a condition for voluntary action? He would have known that it would do him no good to deny it, because before the meeting he had gone to one of them and denied it; and yet after that they determined that he must leave, or be \u201c interrupted,\u201d whatever that might mean.\nThe condition upon which he was not to be \u201c interrupted'\u201d was, that he was to leave and \u201c never return.\u201d But after an absence of a few months he did return to his father-in-law\u2019s, getting there before day, and in a few hours, early in the morning, his father-in-law had gathered a number of those same neighbors, and he found himself in their power.\nNow from what we know of human nature, what are we to assume was the state of his mind? Suppose him to be innocent, what would have been his apprehension ? \u201c They told me if I did not leave and never return they would mob me. I have returned and here they are to mob me. I tried denying my guilt and that did no good. It may be that if I will not irritate them by further denial I may appease them by confession.\u201d And therefore when the prosecutor \u201c went for him\u201d \u2014 a cant phrase by which we understand, fiercely accosted him with the inquiry, \u201c are you not ashamed to try to break up an old a man as I am by stealing his sheep and hogs?\u201d the defendant \u201csata second hanging down his head and said \u2018the first two.hogs you lost, I did not get.\u2019 \u201d The confession itself shows the state of his mind. It was neither a confession nor a denial. lie was afraid to do either. \u201c Which way I turn is death.\u201d\nWe are of the opinion that the confession ought not to have been admitted.\nThere is error. Let this be certified &c.\nPer CuRxam. Venire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. IF. II Pace and D. G. Foide who prosecuted in the Court below appeared with the Attorney General, for the .State.",
      "Messrs. A. M. Laois and T. M. Argo, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. J. C. PARISH.\nIndictment \u2014 Larceny\u2014Evidence\u2014Confessions.\nOn a trial for larceny, it was in evidence that the defendant had been charged in his neighborhood with being a common thief, and that notice had been given for a neighborhood meeting \u201cto consult as to what should be done with him about his stealing so much ; that prior to the meeting the defendant went to one of the neighbors engaged in the movement and denied that he had anything to do with the stealing which had been going on ; that on the day of the meet- ' ing the neighbors assembled and sent word to the defendant that if he would leave the State, they would not interrupt him, and two-days thereafter he left; that after a few months he returned, and in a few hours after his arrival, the same neighbors who took part in the first meeting had again assembled ; that upon being asked by the prosecutor \u201care you not ashamed to try to break up an old man as I am by stealing his sheep and hogs ?\u201d the defendant replied, hanging down his head, \u201cthe first two hogs you lost, I did not get Held, that the confession of the defendant was not admissible in evidenced .\n(Smith, C. J. and Rodman, J. Dissenting.)\nINDICTMENT for Larceny tried at August Term, 1877, of Wake Criminal Court, before Strong, J.\nThe defendant was charged with stealing a sheep, the property of John Young who was introduced by the State for the purpose of proving certain confessions made by the defendant. The witness stated, on the preliminary examination, that about two months before the time the confessions were alleged to have been mad e, and after the time the sheep was alleged to have been stolen, the defendant had left the State ; that the confessions were made on the morning of his return and at his father-in-law\u2019s; he was not under arrest and no promises or threats had been made to him ; the witness and other persons had been sent for, but nothing was said as to the purpose for which they had come together ; the defendant\u2019s father-in-law stated that he \u25a0(defendant) got back that morning ; witness stated that the confessions were made as soon as he got there and that he \u25a0\u201c went straight for him\u201d (defendant) and that he heard no one else speak to defendant before the confessions were made. The defendant objected to the evidence as to the \u25a0confessions upon the ground of undue influence, the objection was overruled, and the witness testified, that he said to defendant, \u201care you not ashamed to try to break up as old \u2022a man as I,am by stealing his sheep and hogs ; the defendant sat a second looking down and said \u2018 the first two hogs jou lost I did not get.\u2019 \u201d It was also in evidence that the defendant left the State on Monday ; that on the Saturday before, there had been a meeting of the citizens of the neighborhood at which a dozen or more were present to consult as to what was t\u00f3 be done with the defendant \u201c about his stealing so much,\u201d and they concluded if he would leave the State and never return, they would not \u201c interrupt'him\u201d on account of the respect they had for his wife and children and for the family of his father-in-law. Thereupon the defendant\u2019s counsel again asked the Court to exclude the confessions previously admitted, which His Honor declined, .and the defendant excepted. It is unnecessary to set out the testimony of other witnesses, as it does not bear upon the point decided in this Court. Verdict of Guilty. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.\nMessrs. IF. II Pace and D. G. Foide who prosecuted in the Court below appeared with the Attorney General, for the .State.\nMessrs. A. M. Laois and T. M. Argo, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0492-01",
  "first_page_order": 508,
  "last_page_order": 511
}