stating, “We believe that the spirit of this policy [the attorney-client privilege] dictates that not only is the conversation protected but the entire setting of the confidential conference must be protected as well. To lend privilege to the words spoken but to allow disclosure of professional impressions drawn from the manner of their delivery all but destroys the substance of their privilege.”
How later courts described this case
- stating, “We believe that the spirit of this policy [the attorney-client privilege] dictates that not only is the conversation protected but the entire setting of the confidential conference must be protected as well. To lend privilege to the words spoken but to allow disclosure of professional impressions drawn from the manner of their delivery all but destroys the substance of their privilege.”
- holding whether death penalty should be imposed is an ultimate issue reserved for jury’s determination
- sentencing jury need not be instructed that divided jury results in life sentence
- whether death penalty should be imposed is an ultimate issue reserved for jurys determination
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45 (1991)
responsibility for a death sentence on to a higher court); and (3) the notion that Sergeant Kubala’s widow believed the death penalty was the appropriate sentence; cf. State v. Wise, 359 S.C. 14, 27, 596 S.E.2d 475, 481-82 (2004) (“a capital defendant may not present a penalty-phase witness to testify explicitly what verdict the jury ‘ought’ to reach” (citation omitted)); State v. Adams, 277 S.C. 115, 283 S.E.2d 582…
The opinion
Lewis, Chief Justice
(concurring):
I concur in the result of the majority opinion, but disagree with the holding as to the sufficiency of the indictment for housebreaking, for the reasons set forth in my dissent in State v. Brooks, S. C., ... S. E. (2d) . . ., filed October 5, 1981.