Opinion ID: 1354792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jury instruction/voluntariness of statements

Text: Appellant contends the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury at the close of the penalty phase that it must find that the appellant's confessions were voluntarily given and accompanied by a waiver of his constitutional rights. This issue was not preserved via a contemporaneous objection at trial. The state contends that this Court should not employ the in favorem vitae doctrine to reach this issue. In favorem vitae , which literally means in favor of life, is a doctrine which has been adhered to by this Court for more than one hundred years. The state petitioned this Court to abolish or modify the doctrine so as to prohibit review of issues in capital cases which have not been preserved by contemporaneous objections, asserting: 1. That historical and legal developments have rendered in favorem vitae obsolete; 2. That the contemporaneous objection rule serves and promotes justice and judicial economy; and 3. That post-conviction remedies and improved procedures adequately and efficiently protect an accused from possible abuses or errors. We find utilization of the doctrine of in favorem vitae unnecessary to a resolution of this case and decline to address its abolition or modification. However, we shall address the asserted error since it may recur during retrial. This Court has never held that a jury must determine the voluntariness of a defendant's statement during the penalty phase of trial. However, in State v. Adams, supra , with regard to jury consideration of a defendant's disputed statement upon conclusion of the guilt phase, this Court stated:  [N]o confession may be considered by [the jury] unless found beyond reasonable doubt to have been given freely and voluntarily under the totality of the circumstances. Id. , citing State v. Harris , 212 S.C. 124, 46 S.E. (2d) 682 (1948), rev'd on other grounds , 338 U.S. 68, 69 S. Ct. 1354, 93 L.Ed. 1815 (1949). In addition, when the defendant is in custody at the time of the alleged confession, the jury must be convinced that he received and understood his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. State v. Adams, supra . In our view, the same rule should apply when a capital defendant's disputed statement is introduced initially during the penalty phase. Thus, during sentencing proceedings held subsequent to filing of this opinion, the jury should be instructed to determine the voluntariness of a defendant's disputed statement when a jury has not previously made this determination. In such cases, the jury should be instructed that they must find beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was freely and voluntarily given under the totality of the circumstances before the statement may be considered. Additionally, the jury should be instructed that they must be convinced that the appellant received and understood his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights if the alleged confession was given while the appellant was in custody.