State v. Jaggers

• Decision Date: 19 June 1900
• Citation: 36 S.E. 434,58 S.C. 41
• Parties: STATE v. JAGGERS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

36 S.E. 434

58 S.C. 41

STATE v. JAGGERS.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 19, 1900

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of York county; O. W Buchanan, Judge.

William Jaggers was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed.

Jas. F. & John R. Hart, for appellant.

Solicitor Henry, for the State.

McIVER C.J.

The defendant was indicted for the murder of one George Burris, and was found guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. The defendant appeals upon the several exceptions set out in the record, which raise but two questions: (1) Whether there was error in receiving certain statements made by the deceased as dying declarations; (2) whether the circuit court erred in admitting the testimony of one Wilson, offered in reply by the state, tending to show that the defendant had made threats against the deceased.

First as to the admissibility of the so-called dying declarations For a proper understanding of this question, it will be necessary to make the following statement, gathered from the "case," as prepared for argument here, as well as from the supplemental testimony embraced in the argument of the solicitor, which was consented to by counsel for appellant, provided they be allowed 20 days in which to submit "additional testimony and further argument," of which proviso, however, the appellant's counsel have not availed themselves. It seems that the deceased was shot on the morning of the 3d of October, 1899, between 9 and 10 o'clock; and the witness Cato Williams who found him some 10 or 15 minutes after he was shot, lying in the yard, near the well, heard him say that "he was shot, and shot bad." This witness, in the supplemental testimony embraced in the argument of the solicitor, is represented as saying that he saw the deceased again that afternoon at his house, about 3 or 4 o'clock, and, when asked whether George (the deceased) said anything about dying, replied: "He never said anything to me about dying, except at the well. He said he was shot, and did not expect to live. He said he was shot bad, and didn't expect to get over it." This manifestly refers to what the witness heard the deceased say in the morning at the well, a very short time after he was shot; for he adds to his testimony just quoted the following: "And the other, at home, I don't know anything about that." The next witness offered to prove the alleged dying declarations was C. H. Sandifer, a magistrate, who reduced the statement of deceased to writing. This witness testified that he was in company with the sheriff about 3 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the day on which deceased was shot, and found him sleeping under the influence of opiates." "We waked him up,--shook him,"--and then he made the statement in question. But, when examined as to whether the deceased was conscious of his condition, he testified as follows: "Q. The boy, George, said nothing to you about whether he was going to die or not? A. No, I told him that he could make it [referring to the statement] if he wished; that he might die; that, if he had any statement to make, to make it now. Q. You told him he might die? A. Yes, sir. Q. He didn't say whether he was going to die or not? A. No, sir; he didn't say. Q. You say he was under the influence of morphine at the time? A. Seemed so. He was breathing pretty heavy, and seemed resting. Q. Didn't seem concerned about himself? A. No, sir; we had to shake him to keep him awake. Q. But he didn't seem to manifest any concern about himself,--whether he would get well or not? A. No; he seemed to be perfectly easy." It seems that another witness (J. N. Gillespie) had previously testified that he had seen the deceased in the morning after he was shot, and when asked if deceased had said anything about dying, replied: "Yes, sir; he just told me he had no hope of himself." But, there being some doubt as to the time when the deceased made this statement, the witness Gillespie was recalled, when he said that this statement was made to him by the deceased after dark, about 9 or 10 o'clock at night of the day deceased was shot; and that the deceased lived until about 12 o'clock the next day.

The rules in regard to the admissibility of dying declarations are well settled: (1) That death must be imminent at the time the declarations in question are made; (2) that the declarant must be so fully aware of this as to be without any hope of life; (3) that the subject of the charge must be the death of the declarant, and the circumstances of the death must be the subject of the declarations. State v Johnson, 26 S.C. 153, 1 S.E. 510, and the cases therein cited, recognized and followed in the subsequent cases of State v. Bradley, 34 S.C. 139, 13 S.E. 315, and Same v. Banister, 35 S.C. 295, 14 S.E. 678. Now, while the third of these requirements was met in this case, and possibly the first, also, although the death did not occur until the next day, yet we are unable to discover any evidence that the second requirement was met; for there is nothing to show that the deceased, at the time he made the declarations in question, was so fully aware that his death was imminent as to have lost all hope of recovery, but the testimony, rather, tends to show the contrary. The deceased was sleeping quietly,--"he seemed to be perfectly easy,"--and, when roused up and asked if he did not want some milk, sat up in bed and drank a glass of milk, and then made the declarations admitted in evidence. He certainly said nothing...