71 S.E. 466 (S.C. 1911), State v. Suber
| Date | 30 May 1911 |
| Citation | 71 S.E. 466,89 S.C. 100 |
| Docket Number | . |
| Parties | STATE v. SUBER. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Page 466
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Richland County; W. T. Aycock, Special Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Nannie Lee Suber was convicted of murder, and she appeals. Dismissed.
Page 467
The defendant was indicted for murder, and found guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. From the sentence imposed upon her, she appealed to this court.
[89 S.C. 101] The exceptions raise the question, whether there was error, on the part of his honor the presiding judge, in refusing the motion for a new trial, made on the ground that the presiding judge did not accompany the jury when it was sent bye him to view the place where the homicide was committed. There is, however, a preliminary question, to wit, whether the appellant waived the right to raise this question by failing to interpose such objection before the verdict was rendered. It is true the record states that the defendant's counsel was not notified that the presiding judge would not accompany the jury when the premises were viewed, but it does not appear that the appellant's attorney was not aware of such fact until the rendition of the verdict. If the appellant's attorney had knowledge of this fact before the verdict was rendered, then the case comes within the principle announced in State v. Ballew, 83 S.C. 82, 63 S.E. 688, 64 S.E. 1019. In that case the jury, while inspecting the locality, made certain experiments in the presence of the defendant's attorney, who failed to inform the court of such fact, until he made a motion for a new trial. In refusing the motion for a new trial the court said: "The defendants, with full knowledge of the misconduct of the jury, having chosen not to complain to the court, but rather to take the risk of a verdict in their favor, could not afterwards, because the verdict was against them, have a new trial on this ground. The general principle that a party cannot take his chances of a successful issue, reserving vices in the trial, of which he has notice, for use in case of disappointment, is universally recognized and obviously just."
But waiving this objection, the exceptions cannot be sustained. Section 2950 of the Code of Laws of 1902, provides that "the jury in any case may, at the request of either party, be [89 S.C. 102] taken to view the place or premises in question, or any property, matter, or thing pertaining to the controversy between the parties, when it appears to the court, that such view is necessary to a just decision," etc. Section 18 art. 1, of the Constitution, is as follows: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial; by an impartial jury, and to be fully informed, of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to be fully heard in his defense, by himself or by his counsel or by both." The presiding judge had the discretionary power, not only under the statute, but at common law, to order the jury to view the premises. "The court in its discretion may authorize the jury, properly attended, to go and examine-- that is, view--the place of the offense, as a help to understanding the evidence. It was formerly supposed that, in a criminal case, this could be only by mutual consent. But the modern practice leaves it wholly within the discretion of the court. It may be at any appropriate stage of the trial; in one case, the jury asked it after the judge had summed up the evidence, and it was granted. It is the defendant's right to be present if evidence is given, perhaps at all events; but he may waive this right, either expressly or by the implication of declining, or even not asking to go. The court, in granting...
To continue reading
Request your trial