Opinion ID: 1262738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Boys' Confession

Text: Boys contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present testimony concerning Boys' confession on the grounds that it was not voluntarily made. We disagree and note at the outset that testimony concerning Boys' confession was not offered during the State's case, but rather for purposes of impeachment after Boys had testified on his own behalf. When Boys was arrested by an investigator he was advised of his rights. He told the officer that his mother had told him that he needed a lawyer and not to say anything. The officer told Boys that he was 17 years old and that he could make up his own mind. Boys said that he wanted to talk and that he wanted to be the one to tell him about it. When the officer asked him what he meant by the one, Boys replied that there were three of them. Boys stated that Ragan and Welch were also there. The officer told him that he needed a lawyer and to quit talking. Boys then stated that they shot him and threw him in the water. The officer replied that Patrick was on the pier. Boys said that he must have lived and crawled out. The test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily given under the totality of the circumstances. State v. Peake , 291 S.C. 138, 352 S.E. (2d) 487 (1987). The trial judge found that the statements were admissible under this test. He reasoned that according to the officer's testimony, Boys never requested an attorney, but simply stated his mother wanted him to get one. The trial court also noted that there was no interrogation by the officers and that the statements were volunteered by Boys. Boys' own testimony supports this finding. On cross-examination, Boys stated twice that the officer told him to be quiet and not say anything else until he got a lawyer. We find that under the totality of the circumstances, the statements were made freely and voluntarily.