State v. Clinkscales
| Citation | 231 S.C. 650,99 S.E.2d 663 |
| Decision Date | 26 August 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 17342,17342 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. John Thomas CLAINKSCALES, Appellant. |
Harold N. Morris, C. S. Bowen, Greenville, for appellant.
James R. Mann, Sol., Thomas A. Wofford, Greenville, for respondent.
TAYLOR, Justice. ppellant was convicted of the charge of murdering his wife with an axe and sentenced to be executed.
Upon trial, the State relied partially upon appellant's confession which was admitted into evidence without objection. Counsel after making inquiry concluded that no valid objection could be made to the admission thereof but now contends that the trial Judge erred in not instructing the jury as to the law appertaining to confessions. Counsel made no request for such instruction nor did they take exception to the omission when, at the conclusion of his charge, the jury having been excused, the trial Judge asked counsel if they wished to request any additional instruction or to take exception to the charge as given. Were this not a capital case, we might summarily dismiss the present contention as untimely; but since the death penalty is involved we must overlook the failure to raise the question at the proper time.
It appears that shortly after the homicide, appellant, a twenty year old Negro with only a fifth grade education, made an oral confession to the Chief of Police at Fountain Inn. He was then brought to Greenville and questioned by two deputy sheriffs. This resulted in a written, detailed confession which was introduced in evidence without objection. All the State's testimony tended to show that the confession was freely and voluntarily made. No testimony was offered by the defense.
The burden was upon the State to show the voluntary character of the confession. State v. Rogers, 99 S.C. 504, 83 S.E. 971. It is well settled that the mere fact that a confession is made while the accused is in the custody of an officer does not render it inadmissible. State v. Judge, 208 S.C. 497, 38 S.E.2d 715; State v. Brown, 212 S.C. 237, 47 S.E.2d 521; State v. Chasteen, 228 S.C. 88, 88 S.E.2d 880. However, the conduct of the officer obtaining the confession will be rigidly scrutinized, State v. Green, 227 S.C. 1, 86 S.E.2d 598; and the fact that it is made while the accused is under arrest is a circumstance, along with all the other facts and circumstances, to be taken into consideration by the jury in determining its voluntariness.
In 20 Am. Jur., page 432, it is stated:
'The fact that the accused is under arrest may excite the vigilance of the court into inquiring into the circumstances attending it and affect its weight before the jury, but it does not necessarily render it inadmissible upon the ground that it was involuntary.'
In Perkins v. State, 217 Ark. 252, 230 S.W.2d 1, 5, the court said:
'The fact that the statements were made to officers while appellant was confined under arrest was a circumstance to be considered on the question of voluntariness which was submitted to the jury under proper instructions.'
Although all the evidence may be to the effect that a confession made while under arrest was a voluntary one, the jury may not be so convinced; and it is the jury who, in the final analysis, must determine the factual issue of voluntariness. State v. Miller, 211 S.C. 306, 45 S.E.2d 23; State v. Gardner, 219 S.C. 97, 64 S.E2d 130. Cf. State v. Harris, 212 S.C. 124, 46 S.E.2d 682. Similarly, even though a jury accepts a written confession as having been voluntarily made, it is not thereby bound to accept every statement contained in it as true; for it is the sole judge of its credibility, and may believe it all, or in part, or not at all. It is unreasonable to assume that these matters are within the knowledge of the average juror; he should be informed of them by the Court. Whether such instruction would have altered the verdict in this case is a matter upon which we need not speculate; since life is at stake the case should be remanded, so that upon its retrial the jury may be instructed as to their power, as sole judges of the facts to determine whether or not, under the evidence the confession was voluntary, and to what extent they will give it credence.
It further appears from the record that the State offered testimony to the effect that appellant had approximately six or seven...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Santiago
...and it [is] for the jury to say in the last analysis whether the confession [is] or [is] not voluntary."); State v. Clinkscales, 231 S.C. 650, 653, 99 S.E.2d 663, 664 (1957) ("Although all the evidence may be to the effect that a confession made while under arrest was a voluntary one, the j......
-
State v. Miller
...and it [is] for the jury to say in the last analysis whether the [statement] [is] or [is] not voluntary."); State v. Clinkscales, 231 S.C. 650, 653, 99 S.E.2d 663, 664 (1957) ("Although all the evidence may be to the effect that a [statement] made while under arrest was a voluntary one, the......
-
Rogers-Kent, Inc. v. General Elec. Co., ROGERS-KEN
... ... is in fair and open competition with commodities of the same general class produced by others shall be deemed in violation of any law of the State by reason of any of the following provisions which may be contained in such contract: ... '(1) That the buyer will not resell such commodity at less ... ...
-
State v. Bullock
...burden rests upon the State to show that it was voluntary, and there is no presumption of law that it was voluntary. State v. Clinkscales, 231 S.C. 650, 99 S.E.2d 663, and State v. Fuller, 227 S.C. 138, 87 S.E.2d 287. We have also held that the mere fact that a confession is made while the ......