State v. Jeffords

• Citation: 114 S.E. 415
• Decision Date: 02 November 1922
• Docket Number: (No. 11044.)
• Parties: STATE. v. JEFFORDS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

114 S.E. 415

STATE.

v.JEFFORDS.

(No. 11044.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 2, 1922.

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Richland County; W. II. Town-send, Judge.

Frank M. Jeffords was convicted of murder and he appeals. Affirmed.

The witness Shorter was a police officer. While Ira Harrison was under arrest, Shorter said to him: "Tell us who else is implicated in it; we want to get them before they get away." To this question Harrison answered: "All right; send and get Mr. Jeffords."

L. G. Southard, of Spartanburg, for appellant.

Solicitor A. F. Spigner and Jas. S. Verner, both of Columbia, for the State.

FRASER, J. Frank M. Jeffords, Ira Harrison, and Glenn Treece were jointly indicted for the murder of J. C. Arnette in Columbia, S. C, on the night of the 9th day of May, 1922. Harrison and Treece had made elaborate, detailed confessions as to the circumstances of the killing. These confessions were in evidence before the coroner's jury. When the case was called for trial, the defendant, Jeffords, made a motion for a severance and separate trial. It was refused by the presiding judge. The motion was renewed at the close of the testimony for the state, and again refused. This refusal forms the basis of the first assignment of error.

1. It is unnecessary to cite authorities, as the appellant admits that the motion was addressed to the discretion of the presiding judge. No abuse of discretion has been shown. Not only was no abuse of discretion shown, but the record shows that the appellant also confessed, not in detail but in general terms, when he said, "I took part in the killing, or participated in the killing, but was over persuaded." This assignment of error cannot be sustained.

II. The next assignment of error is:

"His honor erred in allowing the witness Heise to testify, over the objection of the defendant Jeffords as follows: Mr. Shorter said to him, 'Tell us who else was implicated in it: we want to get them before they get away.' He said, 'All right; send and get Mr. Jeffords' —it being submitted that such part of the statements of the defendant Harrison was not a confession, but an accusation against the defendant Jeffords, and the same was inadmissible and incompetent, and that he was prejudiced thereby."

This statement did not necessarily charge Jeffords with participation in the killing. Jeffords was the partner of Arnette, and most likely to know of the surroundings, and the person who should have been most interested in the punishment of those engaged in the killing. This assignment of error cannot be sustained.

III. The next assignment of error is in allowing confessions of Harrison and Treece to be introduced in evidence, in so far as they contained accusations of Jeffords. The rule is very clear that the confessions must be given as made. If we strike out any part, then the confession ceases to be the confession as made. The rule in such cases is clearly to let all the defendant said be given, and the jury cautioned not to consider it against any one, except the man who makes it. This is unquestionably the rule, and it was strictly and scrupulously followed.

The...