State v. English 201 N.C. 295, 159 S.E. 318 (1931) English was arrested on suspicion of murdering his wife. At Trial, English offered evidence that the day after the murder, the police arrested a guy named Locke, who admitted to three policemen that he had committed the murder English was accused of. However, the police had let Locke go, and Locke's whereabouts were unknown, so he could not be called to testify at trial. The Trial Court refused to admit the evidence about Locke's confession on the grounds that it was hearsay. The Trial Court convicted English.  He appealed. English argued that the testimony about Locke should have been admitted. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed. The North Carolina Supreme Court found that the testimony of a third party (Locke), not under oath, was hearsay. Basically, just because Locke said he did it, it didn't mean he did and had no bearing on whether or not English committed the crime. The basic reason why testimony like this isn't admissible is that the prosecution had no way to cross-examine Locke, or to question him to determine if his claim was credible. Locke could have been a raving lunatic, but the jury would have no way of knowing that unless he testified. Historically, courts have not admitted this sort of testimony because they worried that a rich defendant would pay someone to claim they committed the crime, thereby exonerating the defendant.