State v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 31 December 1914
• Docket Number: 8987.
• Citation: 83 S.E. 971,99 S.C. 504
• Parties: STATE v. ROGERS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

83 S.E. 971

99 S.C. 504

STATE v. ROGERS.

No. 8987.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 31, 1914

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Greenville County; T J. Mauldin, Judge.

Junius Rogers was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

R. M De Shazo, of Greenville, for appellant.

P. A Bonham, of Greenville, for the State.

GARY C.J.

This is an appeal from the sentence of death imposed upon the defendant for murder.

The first exception is as follows:

"Because his honor, the presiding judge, erred in refusing to charge the following request to charge: 'That the jury cannot convict on the alleged confession of Junius Rogers, unless they find in the evidence submitted to them that the alleged confessions were free and voluntary. In the absence of positive proof that the alleged confessions were free and voluntary, there is no presumption of law that they were free and voluntary'--and in not sustaining a motion for a new trial on that ground."

A confession is not admissible unless it is voluntary, and the question whether it is voluntary must be determined, in the first instance, by the presiding judge, but the jury must be the final arbiters of such fact. State v. Branham, 13 S.C. 389; State v. Workman, 15 S.C. 540; State v. Carson, 36 S.C. 524, 15 S.E. 588.

As a confession is not admissible unless it is voluntary, it necessarily follows that the burden rests upon the state to show that it was voluntary, and that there is no presumption of law that it was voluntary.

The second exception is as follows:

"Because his honor, the presiding judge, erred in allowing the witnesses for the state to testify as to the alleged confessions of the defendant over the defendant's objection, said confessions being involuntary and clearly inadmissible, and error in not sustaining defendant's motion for a new trial on that ground."

There were three confessions, two of which were made during the night, and the other next morning.

His honor, the presiding judge, ruled that the first and second confessions were not admissible, but allowed the state to introduce in evidence the third confession. When the question arose as to the admissibility of the confessions, his honor, the presiding judge, requested the jury to retire, and, while they were in their room, the state introduced a great deal of testimony, for the purpose of showing that the second and third confessions were...