State v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 31 December 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 8987.)
• Citation: 99 S.C. 504,83 S.E. 971
• 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.

Dec. 31. 1914.

1. Criminal Law (§ 736^*)—Confession—Admissibility.

A confession is not admissible unless it is voluntary, and whether it is voluntary is, in the first instance, for the presiding judge, but the jury are the final judges of the fact.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1219-1221, 1701, 1702, 1705, 1716; Dec. Dig. § 736.*]

2. Criminal Law (§ 531*)—Confession—Voluntary—Burden of Proof.

The state, seeking to introduce a confession in evidence, has the burden of proving that it was voluntary, and there is no presumption of law that it was voluntary.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1212-1217; Dec. Dig. § 531.*]

3. Criminal Law (§ 532*) — Confession — Voluntary — Evidence — Submission to Jury.

Where the court, excluding the jury while hearing evidence on the question whether a confession was voluntary, decided that it was voluntary, the state, on the jury being recalled, must show the facts leading up to the confession and introduce again all the testimony on which the judge based his ruling, so that they may finally determine whether the confession was voluntary.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1218; Dec. Dig. § 532.*]

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...