Opinion

State v. Thundershield

  • 83 S.D. 414
  • 160 N.W.2d 408
  • 1968 S.D. LEXIS 119
Court
South Dakota Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 23, 1968
Status
Published
Author
Roberts
On the bench
Hanson, Roberts, Rentto, Biegelmeier, Homeyer
Cited by
36 cases

The opinion

ROBERTS, Judge

(dissenting in part).

I concur in the judgment in this case and in part with the court's opinion. As a matter of federal constitutional law, this court has a choice between a rule whereby the judge finally determines voluntariness and a rule under which the jury passes on voluntariness, but only after the judge has found that the confession or admission was voluntary. I think that an accused is entitled to have the jury also determine the issue of voluntariness under proper instructions along with other factual issues. The Constitution of this State, Art. VI, § 7, provides: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right * * * to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed." In other words, the "Massachusetts" rule is in my judgment the sounder and better rule and more consistent with constitutional rights of an accused preserved by the Constitution of this State.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.