State v. Springfield
Decision Date | 14 July 1910 |
Citation | 68 S.E. 563,86 S.C. 318 |
Parties | STATE v. SPRINGFIELD. |
Court | South 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.
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: ***
Elliot Batson, another witness for the defendant, thus testified ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
C.B. Crosland Co. v. Pearson
... ... 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 ... ...