State v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 04 July 1906
• Parties: STATE v. HENDERSON.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

55 S.E. 117

74 S.C. 477

STATE v. HENDERSON.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 4, 1906

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Sumter County; Klugh Judge.

John Henderson was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

Geo. D Levy and H. D. Moise, for appellant. John S. Wilson, for the State.

WOODS J.

On the night of December 17, 1904, Mary Henderson was found lying on the street in the city of Sumter, bleeding profusely from cuts and stabs inflicted by a knife or other sharp instrument. She was taken to the hospital of Dr. Mood and thence to her home, where she soon afterwards died from her wounds. Her husband, the defendant, John Henderson was convicted of her murder, and sentenced to death. By the appeal to this court error is charged in the admission of evidence as to confessions alleged to have been made by the defendant, and in the court's instructions to the jury.

1. The defendant was arrested at night by two policemen, McKagen and Barwick, at Wisacky, some distance from Sumter. McKagen testified that defendant asked him while dressing to go with the officers, "How long do you reckon they will give me for this--five years?" and that he answered, "I don't know; they may not give you anything." McKagen was then allowed to testify further, over objection, that after he and Barwick had started to Sumter with the defendant, who was handcuffed, he asked him, "What did you cut that woman for?" to which the defendant answered, "I was drinking a little and didn't mean to cut her as bad as I did." The law is well settled against the contention of the defendant's counsel that a confession should be excluded as not voluntary merely because made to an officer having the custody of the prisoner. State v. Branham, 13 S.C. 389; State v Dodson, 14 S.C. 628. In deciding the question of fact whether such a confession is free from threat or inducement, the conduct of the officer will be rigidly scrutinized, but the conclusion of the circuit judge on that issue of fact cannot be reviewed by this court unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of judicial discretion. Here the officers not only made no threats and used no force, but treated the prisoner with commendable consideration. Officer McKagen's answer to the defendant's inquiry as to the probable degree of his punishment cannot be regarded an inducement to confess. He merely told the defendant that he did not know whether he would be...