{
  "id": 8697702,
  "name": "In STATE v. BURGWYN, from Halifax",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Burgwyn",
  "decision_date": "1882-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "572",
  "last_page": "574",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.C. 572"
    }
  ],
  "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": "83 N. C., 665",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11279040
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/83/0665-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Dev., 15",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683717
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N. C, 551",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683194
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0551-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N. C., 303",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8691151
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/70/0303-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N. C., 585",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11278936
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/85/0585-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N. C., 31",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 2837,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.0667855803036947e-07,
      "percentile": 0.856993206939864
    },
    "sha256": "7e932a4d3e9be4f95dc85749e0dc5b99dc67a3e2175a9a8a14f33d6888f58f11",
    "simhash": "1:29e1d0fe12aa26dd",
    "word_count": 507
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:13.738110+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In STATE v. BURGWYN, from Halifax:"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ruffin, J.\nThe case discloses but a single exception, and that, in the opinion of this court, cannot be sustained.\nThe state proposed to give in evidence certain confessions of the defendant, .and, upon objection being raised to their competence, examined two witnesses, both of whom testified that they were voluntary, and, free of any inducement of either hope or fear. Thereupon the court admitted the evidence and the defendant excepted.\nAfter oth ex evidence for .the prosecution., the state rested its case, and the defendant then introduced a witness who' testified that the confessions deposed to by the witnesses for' the state had been extorted by fear.\nSo far as we can see from the case, no request was made\u2019 to the court to reconsider its ruling as to the admission of the confessions, after the conflicting evidence bearing on the point was heard. But we do not stop to consider that, for conceding that there had been such request, and that His Honor had declined, We do not see how it could affect our decision.\nWhat facts amount to such threats or promises as to exclude confessions as not being voluntary, is a question of law\u2019, says Pearson, C. J., in State v. Andrew, Phil., 205. So too, whether there be any evidence tending to show that confessions were not voluntary, is a question of law, and the\u2019 decision of the court in regard to them may be reviewed in this court. But whether the evidence, if true, proves these facts, and whether the witnesses giving the testimony in regard to the facts are credible or not, and in a case of a conflict of testimony, which witness should be believed by the court, are all questions of fact to be decided by the court, the decision of which cannot be reviewed.\nTo the same effect are State v. Vann, 82 N. C., 31, and State v. Efler, 85 N. C., 585.\nNo error. Affirmed-.\nIn King v. Ellington, from Wake:\nAshe, J.\nThere was no exception taken by the plaintiff to the charge of the court or its ruling upon any point; and the plaintiff having shown no error, \u201c it must be remembered that if the appellant fails to assign and prove an error, the judgment, although it may be erroneous must be affirmed.\u201d Utley v. Foy, 70 N. C., 303; Swepson v. Summey, 74 N. C, 551; Stephenson v. Jones, 1 Dev., 15.\nThe judgment of -the superior court of Wake must there* fore be affirmed.\nNo error. . Affirmed.\nIn State v. Conway, from New Hanover:\nPer Curiam.\nThis case is governed by State v. Hughes, 83 N. C., 665, and for reasons there given, the judgment is affirmed.\nIn State v. Sheppard, frm Carteret.\nThere is no statement of the case accompanying the reo* ord,and the judgment below is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ruffin, J. Ashe, J. Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In STATE v. BURGWYN, from Halifax:\nConfessions.\nThe decision in State v. Andrew, Phil., 205, and State v. S/ter, 85 ST. C., 585, relating to confessions of defendants as evidence, approved."
  },
  "file_name": "0572-01",
  "first_page_order": 588,
  "last_page_order": 590
}