Where a confession has been obtained, or an inducement held out, under circumstances which would render a confession inadmissi ble, a confession subsequently made is not admissible, unless from the length of time intervening, from proper warning of the con sequences, or from other circumstances, there is reason to presume that the hope or fear which influenced the first confession is dis pelled ; 1 Greenl. Ev. 221; 4 C. & P. 225 ; State v. Guild, 10 N. J. L. 163, 18 Am. Dec. 404 ; State v. Patrick, 48 N. C. 443 ; State v. Vaigneur, 5 Rich. (S. C.) 391; Van Buren v. State, 24 Miss. 512 ; Bubster v. State, 33 Neb. 663, 50 N. W. 953 ; State v. Drake, 113 N. C. 624, 18 S. E. 166 ; State v. Carr, 37 Vt. 191; Com. v. Sheets, 197 Pa. 69, 46 Atl. 753 ; People v. Castro, 125 Cal. 521, 58 Pac. 133 ; Smith v. State, 74 Ark. 397, 85 S. W. 1123 ; State v. Wood, 122 La. 1014, 48 South. 438, 20 L. R. A. (N. S‘.) 392; U. S. v. Charles, 2 Cra. C. C. 76, Fed. Cas. No. 14, 786 ; and the motives proved to have been offered will be presumed to continue, and to have produced the confession, unless the con trary is shown by clear evidence, and the con fession will be rejected ; State v. Roberts, 12 N. C. 259 ; Peter v. State, 12 Swedes & M. (Miss.) 31; Com. v. Taylor, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 605; State v. Potter, 18 Conn. 166; Moore v. Com., 2 Leigh (Va.) 701; Bob v. State, 32 Ala. 560 ; Deathridge v. State, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 75.
Under such circumstances,' contemporane ous declarations of the party are receivable in evidence, or not, according to the attend ing circumstances ; but any act of the party, though done in consequence of such confes sion,.is admissible if it appears from a fact thereby discovered that so much of the con fession as immediately relates to it is true; 1 Leach 263, 386 ; Russ & R. 151; Com. v. Knapp, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 496, 20 Am. Dec. 491; Jordan v. State, 32 Miss. 382; State v. Mot ley, 7 Rich. (S. C.) 327.
A confession made before a magistrate is admissible; State v. Patterson, 68 N. C. 292; State v. Hand, 71 N. J. L. 137, 58 Atl. 641; though made before the evidence of the wit nesses against the party was concluded; 4 C. & P. 567.
Parol evidence, precise and distinct, of a statement made by a prisoner before a mag istrate during his examination, is admissi ble though such statement neither appears in the written examination nor is vouched for by the magistrate ; State v. Bowe, 61 Me. 171 ; 7 C. & P. 188 ; but not if it is of a character which it was the duty of the magis trate to have noted ; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 227, n. Paml evidence of a confession before a mag istrate may be given where the written ex amination is inadmissible through informal ity ; 4 C. & P. 550, n. ; State v. Parish, 44 N. C. 239.
Accusatory statements made to a prisoner and not replied to by him are admissible; Simmons v. State (Ala.) 61 South. 466.
The whole of what the prisoner said must be taken together ; 1 Greenl. Ev. 218; 2 C.
& K. 221; Brown v. Com., 9 Leigh (Va.) 633. 33 Am. Dec. 263 ; Republica v. McCarty, 2 Dall. (Pa.) 86, 1 L. Ed. 300. Where a oner signs the confession which is written by another for him, he waives any objection to it as evidence ; Com. v. Coy, 157 Mass. 200, 32 N. E. 4.
The prevailing rule is that confessions are prima facie voluntary ; Egner v. State, 25' Ohio St. 464 ; Corn. v. • Culver, 126 Mass. 464; State v. Sanders, 84 N. C. 728; State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107, 12 S. W. 516 ; State v. Holtman, 196 Mo. 110, 94 S. W. 237 ; State v. Grover, 96 Me. 363, 52 AU. 757; Thurman v. State, 169 Ind. 240, 82 N. E. 64; but it is sometimes held that confessions are prima facie involuntary and therefore inadmissi ble, and they can be rendered admissible only by showing that they are voluntary and not constrained ; Amos v. State, 83 Ala. 1, 3 South. 749, 3 Am. St. Rep. 682; Jackson v. State, 83 Ala. 76, 3 South. 847; Corley v. State, 50 Ark. 305, 7 S. W. 255 ; but a con fession is not rendered inadmissible by the fact that the party is in custody, provided it is not extorted by inducements or threats ; Pierce v. U. S., 160 U. S. 355, 16 Sup. Ct. 321, 40 L. Ed. 454 ; Nicholson v. State, 38 Md. 140; State v. Johnson, 30 La. Ann. 881 ; State v. Hernia, 68 N. J. L. 299, 53 Atl. 85 ; State v. Conly, 130 N. C. 683, 41 S. E. 534; Hintz v. State, 125 Wis. 405, 104 N, W. 110 ; Calloway v. State, 103 Ala. 27, 15 South. 821; State v. Armstrong, 203 Mo. 554, 102 S. W. 503.
The practice of eliciting confessions by a magistrate during the preliminary examina tion has been strongly condemned. Such a power, once admitted, is liable to unlimited abuse. It is a power not judicial, but es sentially inquisitorial, and, on the whole, prejudicial to the administration of justice ; Kelly v. State, 72 Ala. 244; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 596, 16 Sup. Ct. 644, 40 L. Ed. 819. In Bram v. U. S., 168 U. S. 532, 18 Sup. Ct. 183, 42 L. Ed. 568, it was said: To com municate to a person suspected of the com mission of crime the fact that his co-suspect has stated that he had seen him commit the offense ; to make this statement to him un der circumstances which call imperatively for an admission or a denial ; and to accom pany the communication with conduct which necessarily perturbs the mind and engen ders confusion of thought; and then to use the denial made by the person so situated as a confession because of the form in which the denial is made, is not only to compel the reply, but to produce the confusion of words supposed to be found in it, and then use statements thus brought into being for the conviction of the accused. A plainer viola tion as well of the letter as of the spirit and purpose of the constitutional immunity could scarcely be conceived of.