State v. Workman
| Decision Date | 12 September 1881 |
| Docket Number | CASE No. 1078. |
| Parties | STATE v. WORKMAN. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
1. A person indicted under Chapter CXXIX, Section 4, of the General Statutes, for burning a frame prepared for building, is entitled to only five peremptory challenges.
2. Whether a confession has been free and voluntary depends in large measure upon the circumstances of the case, and is a question for the Circuit judge in his discretion to decide.
3. To render a confession admissible in evidence, it is not necessary that the prisoner should be forewarned of the effect his confession may have.
4. The confession of one of the defendants implicated himself and his co-defendant; while this confession was not evidence as against the other party, there was no error in permitting the full statement of the prisoner to be proved, without suppression of the name of the co-defendant, the jury having been properly instructed that it was evidence only against the party who made it.
5. Two men being jointly tried for the same crime, the wife of one of them is not a competent witness for her husband, nor as to any common ground of defence, for the other defendant.
6. On motion for new trial upon the ground of after-discovered evidence, the affidavits did not show that such evidence could not by due diligence have been discovered before the trial. The motion was properly refused by the Circuit judge.
7. This court cannot look into the evidence to determine whether the verdict is sustained by the facts proved, but must assume that the charge made in the indictment was sufficiently established.
Before HUDSON, J., Newberry, February, 1881.
This was an indictment against Isom Workman and John P. Satterwhite. The report of the presiding judge is as follows:
The defendants were jointly indicted under Chapter CXXIX., Section 4, page 714, General Statutes. Upon their arraignment they claimed the right of twenty peremptory challenges each to the jurors. This I refused, and held them each entitled only to five peremptory challenges. The law clearly defines in what felonies the accused shall have the incidents of arraignments and the right to twenty peremptory challenges, and expressly declares that in all other cases the accused shall have but five peremptory challenges. The present offence is not one of those in which the right to twenty peremptory challenges is given. I allowed the state to give in evidence the confession of Isom Workman because it appeared that the same was made freely and voluntarily, and upon his own solicitation; but I held the confession to be admissible only against Workman, and carefully charged the jury that they must not regard the confession as evidence against Satterwhite; that even if made in Satterwhite's presence the confession would not be evidence against him, but his conduct and words in response thereto would be.
The wife of Satterwhite was offered as a witness in his behalf. I held her an incompetent witness for or against either of the defendants.
To these rulings exceptions were taken by defendants; that to the confession being that it was made under duress, and should have been entirely excluded. The defendants were found guilty, and a motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial was made upon the exceptions aforesaid, and upon the ground that the verdict of the jury is against the law and evidence, and also upon the ground of newly-discovered testimony. I refused the motion, because I can see no error in my aforesaid rulings, because there was evidence to sustain the verdict, and because I do not regard the showing as to newly-discovered testimony sufficient in form or in substance to justify me in setting aside the verdict.
The defendants moved for a new trial upon the following grounds.
1. Because his Honor erred in not allowing the prisoners the right and benefit of twenty peremptory challenges each, but restricted them to five each.
2. Because his Honor erred in permitting the confessions of the defendant, Isom Workman, to go to the jury, when it clearly appeared that they were made under duress and threats of bodily injury.
3. Because the arresting officers did not state to the defendant, Isom Workman, before he made his confession, that what he had to say would or could do him no good, and might or could be used as evidence against him.
4. Because his Honor erred in refusing to allow the wife of the defendant, John F. Satterwhite, to give testimony either in the behalf of her husband or in behalf of the defendant, Isom Workman, in the above-stated case.
5. Because the verdict of the jury was in all respects contrary to the law and the evidence, and that there was no proof whateverof conspiracy between the above-named defendants to commit the offence charged in the indictment.
6. That the newly discovered evidence, as shown by affidavit, shows facts calculated to change the testimony and lead to a conclusion of innocence.
The affidavit referred to in the last ground was as follows:
Personally came O. L. Schumpert, one of the defendants' attorneys, who, being duly sworn, says that since the rendition of the verdict in the case of State v. Workman and Satterwhite, to wit, on Sunday, February 13th, instant, certain evidence was brought to his attention as said attorney for the first time, which goes far to show that the alleged confession of Isom Workman was extorted under duress; that two of the state's witnesses were paid five dollars each to testify against said defendants, and that the prosecutor in said cause and Detective Alley prevented the arresting party from lynching said defendants on the night of their arrest.
Defendants appealed upon the grounds taken for a new trial in the court below.
Messrs. G. S. Mower, J. Y. Culbreath and O. L. Schumpert, for appellants.
Mr. Solicitor Duncan and Mr. Geo. Johnstone, contra.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
In this case the defendants were indicted and tried jointly for burning a frame of timber prepared for making a house, which is made a felony by Section 4, Chapter CXXIX., General Statutes, page 714. Upon their arraignment they each claimed the right to challenge, peremptorily, twenty of the jurors presented, but the Circuit judge held that they were each only entitled to five peremptory challenges, and this presents the first question raised by this appeal.
It is very clear that the prisoners were properly restricted to five peremptory challenges each. The statute designates specifically the cases in which twenty peremptory challenges are allowed, and declares that in other cases the right of peremptory challenge on the part of the accused shall be limited to five. General Statutes 747, 748. The offence for which these defendants were indicted does not fall within any of the classes in which twenty peremptory challenges are allowed. If there could be any doubt upon this point that doubt would be removed by the decision of this court in the recent case of State v. Pope, 9 S. C. 273, which is, in principle, identical with this case.
The next question is as to the admissibility of the confessions of one of the defendants—Isom Workman. Three objections seem to be made. 1. That the confessions were not free and voluntary. 2. That no previous warning had been given to the defendant as to the effect his confessions might have. 3. That even if the confessions were admissible as against the party who made them, they were not competent evidence against the other defendant, and the witnesses in proving them should have been required to omit the name of Satterwhite wherever it was used by Workman in making his confession.
As to the first objection the rule is that the evidence upon the point whether the confessions are free and voluntary or have been extracted by fear or induced by hope excited in the prisoner's breast by some outside influence, is addressed to the presiding judge, and it is a matter for him in his discretion to decide; but as it is difficult to lay down any particular rule by which the proper exercise of this discretion is to be tested, each case must, in large measure, depend upon its own circumstances. 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 219. In this case the Circuit judge reports that the confession of Workman was admitted in evidence “because it appeared that the same was made freely and voluntarily, and upon his own solicitation,” and we think the testimony set out in the ““case” fully sustains this statement of the Circuit judge, and that there was no error in admitting the confessions.
The next objection to the confessions cannot be sustained. No previous warning was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Young
...and the burden is upon the State to prove that the proffered confession was voluntarily given, 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; State v. Rogers, 99 S.C. 504, 83 S.E. 971; State v. Fuller, 227 S.C. 138, 87 S.E.2d 287; St......
-
State v. Landes
...H. 364; Biscoe v. State, 67 Md. 6, 8 Atl., 571; Corley v. State, so Ark. 305, 7 S.W. 255; State V. Crowson, 98 NC 595, 4 S.E. 143; State v. Workman, 15 SC 540; State v. Gorham, 67 Vt. 365, 31 Atl. 845; Lefever v. State, 50 Ohio, 584, 35 N.E. 52; 3 Enc. of Ev. 343. With nothing in the record......
-
State v. Miller
...person charged with crime must be admonished that, if he made any statement against himself, it would prejudice his case; but in State v. Workman, 15 S.C. [540] 544, this court held that 'no previous warning was necessary.' In that case, quoting from 1 Greene. Ev. § 299, it was said: 'Neith......
-
State v. Miller, 16006.
...person charged with crime must be admonished that, if he made any statement against himself, it would prejudice his case; but in State v. Workman, 15 S.C. [540] 544, this court held that 'no previous warning was necessary.' In that case, quoting from 1 Greene. Ev. § 299, it was said: 'Neith......