State v. Springfield

Decision Date14 July 1910
Citation68 S.E. 563,86 S.C. 318
PartiesSTATE v. SPRINGFIELD.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Greenville County Chas. G. Dantzler, Judge.

Young Springfield was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Cothran Dean & Cothran, for appellant. P. A. Bonham, Sol., for the State.

GARY A. J.

The following statement appears in the record: "The defendant was indicted, in the court of general sessions for Greenville county, for the murder of his father, Thomas Springfield, at Greenville, S. C., on December 30, 1908 tried before Judge Robert Aldrich and a jury at Greenville at September term, 1909; verdict, guilty of manslaughter. Sentence, two years at hard labor in the state penitentiary.

Upon the trial of the case the defendant offered testimony to show that shortly before he shot and killed the deceased, the deceased was in a drunken, turbulent humor; that he abused and beat his wife, the mother of the defendant; that he pressed a hatchet against her forehead, and threatened to kill her if she spoke; that he drew a gun upon her, and threatened to take her life. This testimony was excluded by the presiding judge, upon the ground that it was irrelevant."

The ground of error is thus specified: "This testimony was competent and relevant, upon the ground that the defendant had interposed a plea of self-defense; that he was entitled to prove every fact and circumstance connected with the conduct of the deceased occurring shortly before the fatal encounter, which was fairly calculated to create an apprehension for his own safety; that particular acts of violence were relevant to show an apprehension on the part of the defendant of violence from the deceased." No other ground of error can be considered.

Sam Johnson, a witness for the State, testified on cross-examination, that he had seen the deceased draw his pistol, and heard him threaten to kill the defendant; that the deceased was drinking some about 10 o'clock on the morning of the difficulty; that he had heard him threaten Mrs. Springfield, his wife, and say to her, with an oath "today is your last." Mrs. M. E. Springfield, wife of the deceased, was asked the question: "whet was his (her husband's) condition that day, do you know?" Her answer was: "Drinking as usual."

Zed Hall, a witness for the defendant, testified as follows: "Do you know whether or not you saw Mr. Springfield take a drink before the shooting? Yes, sir. Who with? Myself. *** Was he drinking that day? Yes, sir. How long had you been with him? Several years. I asked Mr. Stroud, who testified, if you advised him to go from the store up to the house, and he said you did. Had you been to the house just before? Yes, sir. How long was that before the shooting? Was an hour and a half; something like that. I want to ask you, what was his condition, with reference to turbulence, and violence, the frame of mind which he was in, with reference to turbulence and violence at that time? Very rough. Was it in consequence of that you asked Stroud to go up there? Yes, sir. Was there anybody else at the store? Yes, sir. You had been called to the house? Yes, sir. That was the condition in which you found him when you went over there? Yes, sir. Did you ever hear Thomas Springfield threaten the life of Young? Yes, sir. Did you ever see him do bodily violence to him or bodily harm to him? I have seen him choke him. How much did he choke him? Choked him pretty bad." ***

Elliot Batson, another witness for the defendant, thus testified "I want you to state whether or not you ever heard Thomas Springfield admit that he had threatened the life of Young Springfield? Yes, sir; I heard him say that he threatened the life of Young Springfield, and said that he had reconsidered it, and that it would be too bad. That was during the time that he was gone, that he said 'I have reconsidered that.' I says: 'That would be too bad; never do anything like that.' I says: 'Young will come back after awhile,' and he says, 'I will whip...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • C.B. Crosland Co. v. Pearson
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 14 Julio 1910
    ... ... charge juries, in respect to matters of fact, but shall ... declare the law." ...          It is ... not a charge on the facts to state the issues raised by the ... pleadings. Miles v. Tel. Co., 55 S.C. 403, 33 S.E ... 493. If the presiding judge states the issues erroneously, it ... ...

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