State v. . Cruse

RodmaN, J. An officer who arrests a person charged with crime, has a right to tie him, if he thinks it necessary to do so, either to prevent his escape or to prevent violence to himself or others' State v. Stalcup. 2 Ire. 50. From the fact that the officer tied the prisoner under the circumstances set forth, no inference can bo drawn of a purpose to frighten him so as to induce a confession. It is admitted law that the ■confessions of a prisoner cannot be received as evidence against him, unless it appears that they were made freely and without the inducement of hope or fear. If a person in authority (as the constable on this occasion was) presents even a 'very slight inducement to the prisoner to confess, his confessions thereafter made are inadmissible. The principle is discussed with much ability in Regina v Moore, 12 E. L. & E. R., 583, and in Regina v. Bal dry, Id., 590. See also 1 Greenl. Ev., S. 219; State v. Davis. 63 N. C. Rep., 578; State v. Moore, 1 Hay., 582. It is held in many cases that the mere fact that the prisoner was under arrest when he made the confessions, does not render them incompetent, unless some inducement had been held out to him. State v. Jefferson, 6 Ire., 305 ; State v. Parish. Busb. 239. In the present case the prisoner not long after he had been tied, said : “ If you will untie me, I will tell you all about it.” The constable then untied the prisoner, and the prisoner then stated that he and another broke into the prosecutor’s house and took the property mentioned in the indictment, and he led the officer to the place in which it had been concealed. *493 If it appeared that tbe tying was so done as to produce pain, and that to be relieved of tbe pain formed an inducement to tbe subsequent confession, we should not hesitate to reject it. Nothing is more abhorrent to our law than confessions extorted by tortue, or by the fear of it, or by the hope of being-relieved from it. But it appears in the present case that the tying- was resorted to, to restrain the violence of the prisoner. It does not appear that it was painful, or that it was continued longer than was necessary for the object in view. The confessions were made after the- prisoner was released from his bonds. We think they were properly admitted in evidence to the jury, subject as to their credibility, to be affected by all the circumstances attending them. Of their credibility, under the circumstances, the jury was the proper judge. As in our opinion all the confessions were admissible, it is unnecessary to consider separately that part of the prisoner’s statement which relates to the goods having been deposited by him in the place where they were afterwards found. -Judgment affirmed. Let this opinion be certified. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.