“[i]t is beyond question in this state that where an accused offers no testimony or evidence into the trial of a case, other than his own testimony, he has the right to the opening and closing arguments”
How later courts described this case
- “[i]t is beyond question in this state that where an accused offers no testimony or evidence into the trial of a case, other than his own testimony, he has the right to the opening and closing arguments”
- construing former Code Ann. § 27-2201
- a written confession of a defendant is admissible for impeachment purposes, without regard to whether the statement was voluntary
- defendant has right to opening and closing arguments where he offers no evidence other than his own testimony
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Hill, Justice,
concurring specially.
I cannot agree with all that is said in Division 1. The majority say that no separate hearing (or judicial determination) on the voluntariness of a confession is required where the confession is offered only for purposes of impeachment. In other words, the majority say that an involuntary confession may be used for purposes of impeachment. For this proposition, they cite Harris v. New York, supra, and its progeny in Georgia. In Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (98 SC 2408, 57 LE2d 290) (1978), the Harris rule was limited to Miranda violations. In Mincey the court held that any use (in a criminal trial), even use solely for impeachment, of an involuntary statement, violates due process. 437 U.S. at 398 .
Here, however, the defendant admitted while testifying that his confession had been made freely and voluntarily. I therefore concur in the judgment.