City of Columbia v. Jennings
| Decision Date | 09 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 0618,0618 |
| Citation | 339 S.E.2d 534,288 S.C. 79 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The CITY OF COLUMBIA, Condemnor, Appellant, v. Willie Mae JENNINGS, John W. Jennings, and P. Cornell Jennings, Respondents, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Condemnee. . Heard |
Roy D. Bates, James S. Meggs, and Joseph Wettlin, Office of the City Atty., Columbia, for appellant.
A. Camden Lewis, of Lewis, Babcock, Gregory & Pleicones, and W. Davies Merry, III, Columbia, for respondents.
In this condemnation case, the City of Columbia appeals from a verdict in favor of the landowners, Willie Mae Jennings, John W. Jennings, and P. Cornell Jennings. The sole issue presented by the City's appeal is whether the trial judge committed reversible error in not allowing a jury view of the premises in question.
At the conclusion of its case, the City "offer[ed] the scene into evidence." The landowners made a similar offer, "if that is what your Honor wishes." The trial judge refused to send the jury to the condemned premises. He stated,
Section 14-7-1320 of the South Carolina Code of Laws (1976) provides in part:
The jury in any case may, at the request of either party, be taken to view the place or premises in question ... when it appears to the court that such view is necessary to a just decision....
The purpose of a jury view is to enable the jury better to understand the evidence presented in the courtroom. Jacks v. Townsend, 228 S.C. 26, 88 S.E.2d 776 (1955). Viewing the premises is not regarded as the taking of evidence. Baroody v. Anderson, 195 S.C. 422, 11 S.E.2d 860 (1940). Under Section 14-7-1320, a request to allow the jury to view the place in controversy is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge. Moody v. Dillon Co., 210 S.C. 458, 43 S.E.2d 201 (1947). The exercise of a trial judge's discretion in this regard will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Johnson v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 236 S.C. 424, 114 S.E.2d 591 (1960).
No abuse of discretion appears in the present case. The testimony and the exhibits, which included, among other things, several photographs, a video tape, a plat, and a topographical map, sufficiently described the "scene." Thus, a jury view was not necessary to a "just...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mouzon, 2440
...Gossett v. State, 300 S.C. 473, 388 S.E.2d 804 (1990); Jacks v. Townsend, 228 S.C. 26, 88 S.E.2d 776 (1955); City of Columbia v. Jennings, 288 S.C. 79, 339 S.E.2d 534 (Ct.App.1986), or the taking of testimony. State v. Plath, 281 S.C. 1, 313 S.E.2d 619 (1984); State v. Suber, 89 S.C. 100, 7......
-
Kincaid v. Landing Development Corp.
...a scene in question is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge. S.C.Code Ann. § 14-7-1320 (1976); City Of Columbia v. Jennings, 288 S.C. 79, 339 S.E.2d 534 (Ct.App.1986). The trial judge's decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. The judge permitted the viewing......
-
Sturkie v. Constance, 1894
...to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, City of Columbia v. Jennings, 288 S.C. 79, 339 S.E.2d 534 (Ct.App.1986). In the case at hand, several photographs of the scene were admitted into evidence. Further, appellant introdu......