State v. . Hammond

Denny, J. The defendants assign as error the ruling of the court below admitting in evidence, over objection, the testimony of the officers as to confessions made to them by the defendants. On the voir dire the defendants testified they were not put in fear, but that on some occasions when the officers talked to them they were not warned of their rights, while at other times they were told by the officers, “You just as well come on and tell us and we will help you out,” or “There’s nothing much to it if you tell the truth because we can help you out a w'hole lot.” The defendants did not repudiate their confessions, but relied solely upon their inadmissibility in evidence because of the promises of help they testified the officers made to them as an inducement to make the confessions. On the other hand, each officer who talked with the defendants, or either of them, testified that each defendant was informed of the charge against him and advised each time the officers talked with him, that he did not have to make any statement relative to the murder of Robert Hayes; and was further warned that any statement he might make could be used against him in court. According to the testimony of the officers, no threats were made against the defendants, or either of them, and no promises whatsoever were given as an induce *111 ment to obtain the confessions. Whereupon, the court found as a fact that the several statements made to the officers by the defendants “were free and voluntary,” and were “admissible in evidence, the weight and credibility, if any, being matters for the jury.” The defendants in their confessions, according to the testimony of the officers (and there were five of them, including one member of the State Bureau of Investigation), corroborated in detail the evidence which the State had obtained prior to the arrest of the defendants. The competency of a confession is a preliminary question for the trial court, and is not ordinarily subject to review. 8. v. Whitener, 191 N. C., 659, 132 S. E., 603; S. v. Fain, 216 N. C., 157, 4 S. E. (2d), 319; S. v. Rogers, 216 N. C., 731, 6 S. E. (2d), 499; S. v. Manning, 221 N. C., 70, 18 S. E. (2d), 821; S. v. Hairston, 222 N. C., 455, 23 S. E. (2d), 885. If a confession depends primarily on the determination of facts, the court’s ruling will not be disturbed if supported by any competent evidence. S . v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421; S. v. Brooks, 225 N. C., 662, 36 S. E. (2d), 238. Likewise, where the evidence is merely in conflict on the question as to whether or not a confession was voluntary, the ruling of the court is conclusive on appeal. S. v. Biggs, 224 N. C., 23, 29 S. E. (2d), 121. However, as said in S. v. Andrew, 61 N. C., 205 : “What facts amount to such threats or promises as make confessions not voluntary and admissible in evidence is a question of law, and the decision of the judge in the court below can be reviewed by this Court ; so, what evidence the judge should allow to be offered to him to establish these facts is a question of law.” S. v. Biggs, supra; S. v. Manning, supra. Applying the principles of law laid down in the decisions cited herein, to the facts disclosed on this record, the exception to the admission of evidence relating to the confessions made to the officers by the defendants, cannot be sustained. We have carefully examined the remaining exceptions and assignments of error; and they are without merit. In the trial below, we find No error.