State v. Thompson

DeNNY, J.

Exceptions one to eleven, inclusive, are directed to the admission in evidence of the confessions made by the defendants. The defendants insist in their brief that the confessions were involuntary and incompetent as evidence, for the following reasons: (1) That the defendants were in custody and that a large number of officers were present when the confessions were made; (2) that the defendants were not informed as to the charge against them and that they had a right to have counsel; and (3) that the statements made to the defendants by the officers tended to offer inducement to the defendants to make the confessions.

*664 The defendants objected to the admission of the confessions, but declined the offer of the trial judge to have their voluntariness determined in the absence of the jury. The objection to the admission of these confessions conies too late unless their involuntariness appears from the State’s evidence.

S. v. Biggs, ante, 23, 29 S. E. (2d), 121 ;

S. v. Richardson, 216 N. C., 304 , 4 S. E. (2d), 852 ;

S. v. Alston, 215 N. C., 113 , 3 S. E. (2d), 11 .

Statements made by a defendant while in the custody of officers or in jail are competent, if made voluntarily and without any inducement or fear. Likewise, a confession, otherwise voluntary, is not made inadmissible because of the number of officers present at the time it was made.

S. v. Wagstaff, 219 N. C., 15 , 12 S. E. (2d), 657 ;

S. v. Richardson, supra; S. v. Murray, 216 N. C., 681 , 6 S. E. (2d), 513 ;

S. v. Exum, 213 N. C., 16 , 195 S. E., 7 ;

S. v. Caldwell, 212 N. C., 485 , 193 S. E., 716 ;

S. v. Stefanoff, 206 N. C., 443 , 174 S. E., 411 ;

S. v. Gray, 192 N. C., 594 , 135 S. E., 535 ;

S. v. Rodman, 188 N. C., 720 , 125 S. E., 486 .

According to the evidence, the defendants at the time of their arrest were informed of the charge against them, as required by G-. S., 15-47, formerly C. S., 4548 (a). It also appears affirmatively and uncon-tradicted that none of the defendants made a request to be allowed to communicate with relatives or friends or to obtain counsel. Hence, the exceptions directed to the failure of the officers to inform the defendants of the charge against them and to further inform them that they had a right to have counsel, cannot be sustained.

S. v. Exum, supra.

Finally, it is contended by the defendants that the statements made to them by some of the officers, constituted an inducement to make the confessions, and, therefore, the confessions cannot be held to be voluntary and admissible as evidence against them. The statements relied upon to sustain the defendants’ contention, are as follows: “You need not make any statement, but any statement made could be used for or against you,” and as to the defendant Annie Mae Allison, one of the police officers said to her, “If you want to go ahead and tell me the truth, I will appreciate it.”

Ordinarily, where a defendant is warned as to his rights, it is proper to inform him that he need not make any statement, but that whatever statement he does make may be used against him. However, there is no set formula or exact language that must be used in warning a defendant of his rights, and we do not think the statements complained of affected in any way the voluntariness of the confessions made by the defendants.

S. v. Exum, supra; S. v. Caldwell, supra.

Moreover, the confessions made by the defendants in the presence of each other, are in evidence without objection, since the exceptions thereto, as well as all *665 remaining exceptions, are not set out in defendants’ brief. Therefore, such exceptions are considered abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N. C., 563 .

The assignments of error appearing on the record are not brought forward and grouped in accordance with the requirements of Rule 19 (3), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N. C., 554 . Since, however, the defendants have been sentenced to death, we have considered the appeal on its merits.

In the trial below, his Honor and the attorneys appointed by the court to represent the defendants, were extremely careful to safeguard the rights of the defendants, and in the trial we find No error.