LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW — Confessional Statements — Retracted Confession — Admissibility and Evidentiary Value
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
When an accused contends that a confessional statement was not made voluntarily, the judge must conduct a trial within a trial to determine voluntariness; failure to do so renders the statement inadmissible.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogwuegbu, JSC, in Emeka v. State (2001) NLC-72000(SC) at pp. 6–7; Paras A–B.
"The law is that when an accused person contends that a confessional statement sought to be tendered in evidence was not made by him voluntarily, it is the duty of the Judge to test the confession by conducting a trial within a trial, in order to determine whether infact the statement was voluntarily made. Failure of the learned trial Judge to do so renders the statement inadmissible and all evidence admitted by virtue of the statement should be expunged. When there is a trial within a trial, onus is on the prosecution to prove that it was free and voluntary. In order that evidence of a confession may be admissible, it must be affirmatively proved that the confession was free and voluntary."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A trial within a trial is mandatory when the accused challenges the voluntariness of a confessional statement. The judge must conduct a separate hearing, outside the jury’s presence, to determine voluntariness. The prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary. Failure to conduct a trial within a trial renders the statement inadmissible. Any evidence derived from the statement must be expunged. The principle protects the accused from coerced confessions. The judge must make a clear finding on voluntariness. The trial within a trial is a critical safeguard. The rule applies regardless of whether the statement was retracted or not.