State v. Price
| Decision Date | 01 March 1916 |
| Docket Number | 9291. |
| Citation | 88 S.E. 295,103 S.C. 277 |
| Parties | STATE v. PRICE. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Marion County Memminger, Judge.
B Frank Price was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
The defendant was indicted for murder, and was tried before his honor, Judge Memminger, and a jury at the June term of court 1915, for Marion county, and was found guilty of murder, with recommendation to mercy. After verdict was rendered, a motion for a new trial and arrest of judgment was made, and overruled by the court, and sentence pronounced. Defendant appeals, and asks reversal.
The first exception imputes error to the presiding judge in the exclusion of certain testimony, and is as follows:
(L) Because his honor erred, it is respectfully submitted, in refusing to permit the defendant to testify as to communications made to him by his wife immediately before or shortly before the fatal encounter, and in holding that it was incompetent for the defendant to tell what his wife told him before the killing, in that such testimony was competent as tending to show the attitude of the deceased toward the defendant, and the state of mind of the defendant shortly before the fatal encounter, and the absence of malice, and was so closely connected with the fatal encounter in time and circumstances as to be fairly regarded as a part of the res gestæ, and because his honor also erred, it is respectfully submitted, in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial, on the same ground.
This exception must be sustained. His honor held that it was incompetent for witness to testify to what his wife told him immediately before or shortly before the fatal encounter. His honor did not even ascertain what the witness expected to prove. This he could have done by having the jury to retire or calling up the defendant's counsel and solicitor to his desk, if he thought the jury should not hear it, and allowed the question asked and objection made, and announced his ruling. As it is, this court is in the dark as to the nature of the evidence. If it was in the nature of a threat, or anything that went to show mental attitude of the deceased to the defendant, it would have been competent. Where a witness is not allowed to testify and the court has no information as to what his testimony would have been, it is a reversible error if the excluded testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mason
... ... from such a source, as would authorize a reasonable man, ... situated as the defendant then was, to honestly believe that ... such information was true.' To the same effect is ... Rogers v. State, 8 Okl.Crim. 226, 127 P. 365. As ... bearing on the subject, also see State v. Price, 103 ... S.C. 277, 88 S.E. 295; State v. Bowers et al., 122 ... S.C. 275, 115 S.E. 303; State v. Williams, 125 S.C ... 385, 118 S.E. 783. The question is an interesting one but ... under the facts of this case, we find it unnecessary to pass ... upon it. Even assuming that it was proper to ... ...
-
State v. Tapp
... ... So ... you can readily see there was a circumstance which was ... believed by the jury so as to overcome the whole thing, that ... he had brought about the death of his wife; and he was ... convicted." ... James ... H. Price, of Greenville, for appellants ... P. A ... Bonham, of Greenville, for the State ... HYDRICK, ... The ... defendants, Charles Tapp, John Pruitt, and Lizzie Pruitt, ... were indicted for the murder of Minnie England--the two first ... ...
-
State v. Bowers
...whether true or false, is original and material evidence and not mere hearsay." Friend v. Hamill, 34 Md. 298, 308. See State v. Price, 103 S.C. 277, 279, 88 S.E. 295. extent to which a witness may be allowed to enter into detail in testifying to communications of this kind, however, must be......
- Kitchens v. Melton