State v. Hendrix

Decision Date14 May 1910
PartiesSTATE v. HENDRIX.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Barnwell County; Geo W. Gage, Judge.

Frank Hendrix was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Dismissed.

The following are the exceptions:

"(1) Because his honor erred in charging the jury as follows 'And then there is a second count, which charges him with stealing a gun worth $7. That is only petit larceny, and the penalty for that is only 30 days' imprisonment. You have heard the testimony, gentlemen, if you are satisfied that he broke into the house and stole, say so, and if you think the punishment too severe, you may recommend him to the mercy of the court. You may write one of two verdicts: "Guilty," or "Guilty with recommendation," or, of course, "Not guilty," and sign your name as foreman to the verdict.'
"(2) That the circuit judge erred in charging the jury that they might write one of two verdicts--that is, 'Guilty,' or 'Guilty with recommendation,' or, of course, 'Not guilty'--in that under such charge the jury was mislead into failing to specify the specific offense on which they found the defendant guilty. Such verdict being responsive to both counts in the indictment, and the court having failed to instruct the jury that they might acquit the defendant on the first count and convict him on the second count alone, they were mislead into finding a general verdict of guilt, even if they found from the facts that the defendant was guilty of the second count only.
"(3) Because the judge erred in not charging the law applicable to the issues raised by the second count in the indictment, in that, the jury could convict or acquit the defendant on the said second count, thereby ignoring the said second count in the indictment, all of which deprives the defendant of having his issues in his said case fully passed upon by the jury and court, which were prejudicial to his case, for the reason, had the jury acquitted on the first count and convicted on the second count, the punishment and fine would have been very much lighter, only 30 days or $100 at the greatest.
"(4) Because the judge erred in not charging the law applicable to the issues in the indictment, as required by the Constitution of 1895 (article 5, § 26), which provides: 'Judges shall not charge juries in respect to matters of fact, but shall declare the law.' All of which, it is respectfully submitted, he failed to do in this case, as is shown by reference to his said charge."

A. H. Ninestein, for appellant. James F. Byrnes, Sol., for the State.

GARY A. J.

The defendant was convicted under an indictment containing two separate counts--one for burglary and the other for larceny--growing out of the same transaction. The verdict of the jury was simply "Guilty." The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years, on the public works of Barnwell county, and he appealed from said sentence.

The first exception is too general for consideration, as it merely quotes from the charge of his honor the presiding judge, without assigning any specific error. The second exception is as follows: "That the circuit judge erred in charging the jury that they might write one of two verdicts--that is, 'Guilty,' or 'Guilty with recommendation,' or, of course, 'Not guilty'--in that under such charge the jury was misled into failing to specify the specific...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Long
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 7, 1912
    ......652; State v. Thompson, 76 S.C. 116, 56 S.E. 789; Snipes v. Railway, 76 S.C. 208, 56 S.E. 959; Morrison v. Association, 78 S.C. 398, 59 S.E. 27; State v. [77 S.E. 66.] . .          Boyleston,. 84 S.C. 574, 66 S.E. 1047; State v. Chastain, 85. S.C. 64, 67 S.E. 6; State v. Hendrix, 86 S.C. 64, 68. S.E. 129; State v. Crosby, 88 S.C. 98, 70 S.E. 440. It will be seen from these cases that this court cannot. reverse the judgment in this case on the ground in question,. ......
  • Bennett v. Columbia Elec. St. Ry. Light & Power Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 18, 1912
    ...... instructions should be more specific, they should have been. presented, as requests to charge. State v. Adams, 68. S.C. 421, 47 S.E. 676; Jennings v. Mfg. Co., 72 S.C. 411, 52 S.E. 113; Williams v. Ry., 76 S.C. 1, 56. S.E. 652; State v. Thompson, ...Ass'n, 78 S.C. 398, 59 S.E. 27;. State v. Boyleston, 84 S.C. 574, 66 S.E. 1047;. State v. Chastain, 85 S.C. 64, 67 S.E. 6; State. v. Hendrix, 86 S.C. 64, 68 S.E. 129; State v. Du. Rant, 87 S.C. 532, 70 S.E. 306. . .           [92. S.C. 76] The next question for consideration ......
  • State v. Eskew
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 23, 1945
    ...... prejudiced by the failure of the Court to charge more fully. the meaning of such simple phrases. Had [211 S.C. 568] . appellant desired the Court to define the phrases it was his. duty to make his wishes known. State v. Wardlaw, 153. S.C. 175, 150 S.E. 614; State v. Hendrix, 86 S.C. 64, 68, S.E. 129; State v. Chastain, 85 S.C. 64, 67. S.E. 6; State v. Harrell et al., 142 S.C. 24, 140. S.E. 258; State v. Craig, 161 S.C. 232, 159 S.E. 559; State v. Roof, 144 S.C. 118, 142 S.E. 238;. State v. Jacobs, 111 S.C. 283, 97 S.E. 835;. State v. Stafford, 193 S.C. 474, 8 ......
  • State v. Rouse
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 24, 1926
    ...... appearances. The second is that the defendant's counsel,. by the words and conduct related hereinbefore, waived any. right to have the judge charge the request in the particular. language of that request. State v. Bethune, 86 S.C. 143, 67 S.E. 466; State v. Hendrix, 86 S.C. 64, 68. S.E. 129; State v. Chastain, 85 S.C. 64, 67 S.E. 6;. State v. Adams, 68 S.C. 421, 47 S.E. 676. . .          The. judgment of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT