Court Opinion

ID: 9587589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:24:00.956283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:57.354956
License: Public Domain

Legge, Justice
(concurring-in the result).
I limit my concurrence to the result, because, although otherwise in full accord with the opinion, I am unable to agree that there-was no prejudicial error in that portion of *672the charge wherein (according to the transcript, by which we are bound) the jury was instructed that “before an alleged confession can be considered by the jury as evidence it must not have been induced by promises nor extorted by fear, but must be free and voluntary in every respect, and then it must be believed by the jury.” (Italics added.) The jury may well have understood, from the quoted language, that if they should find that the confession had been freely made they must accept all of the statements made therein as true. The language is certainly susceptible of such construction; so construed, it is an erroneous statement of the law, for even though the jury may accept the confession as having been freely made, they are the sole judges of its credibility, and may believe its statements in toto, or in part, or not at all. State v. Miller, 211 S. C. 306, 45 S. E. (2d) 23. But if the able trial judge did charge in the language quoted, it was the duty of counsel to call his attention to the error, which he undoubtedly would have corrected then and there. No timely objection or request for clarification having been made, appellant cannot now complain of it.
Taylor, J., concurs.