Sawyers v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 17 September 1891 |
| Citation | 13 S.E. 708,88 Va. 356 |
| Parties | Sawyers v. Commonwealth. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Criminal Law—Right to Close—Remarks of Counsel—Arson.
1. In a criminal prosecution, where counsel is employed by a private person to assist the commonwealth's attorney, the question whether or not defendant is entitled to the closing argument before the jury rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling against defendant is not subject to review, except for abuse of discretion.
2. In a criminal case, a remark by the commonwealth's attorney that, though he had no right to swear any man accused of crime, he had the right to prove the latter's statements, does not violate Code Va. § 3897, which provides that the failure of accused to testify shall not be the subject of comment before the court or jury.
3. In a prosecution for setting fire to an unoccupied dwelling-house, which was only partially completed when burned, the evidence showed that when the fire was discovered, the flames were bursting out at every opening, and that the fire appeared to have been set in several places. It was also shown that defendant entertained hostile feelings towards the owner of the building; that he had repeatedly threatened to burn it; that, after the fire, he was seen to stand on the site of the house, and hold up his hands, and yell as if in delight; and that he had admitted to several witnesses that he had burned the house. Held, that the evidence so clearly established defendant's guilt that an erroneous ruling by the court, excluding evidence offered to impeach one of the commonwealth's witnesses, was no ground for reversal, since such exclusion could not have harmed defendant.
Defendant Sawyers was indicted for maliciously and feloniously burning the building of another. He was convicted, and now brings error. Affirmed.
Marshall & Bowller. for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
Lewis, P. This is a writ of error and supersedeas to a judgment of the circuit court of Alleghany county, affirming a judgment of the county court of that county, whereby the prisoner was sentenced, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, to three years' imprisonment in the penitentiary for the felonious and malicious burning of a certain building, the property of one John W. Jennings.
The first assignment of error that we will consider raises the question whether or not the county court erred in permitting the argument before the jury to be concluded (against the prisoner's objection) by R. L. Parrsh, an attorney employed by Jennings to aid the attorney for the commonwealth. It is contended that in a criminal prosecution, wherein counsel are employed by private parties to prosecute, the accused has the right to answer any argument that may be made to the jury by such counsel, and that it was error in the present case to permit the case before the jury to be concluded by Parrish; but we do not concur in this view. It was a matter to be determined by the trial court, in the exercise of a sound discretion; and there is nothing in the record to show that this discretion had been abused. Hopper's Case, 6 Grat. 684; 3 Rob. Pr. (Old.) 227; 1 Bish. Crim. Proc. (3d Ed.) § 282.
The subject of the next assignment of error is a remark made by Parrish in the closing argument, which was as follows: "Although I have no right to swear any man who is accused of crime, 1 have the right to prove bis statements." The prisoner objected to the remark at the time, as he does now, claiming that It was in violation of section 3897 of the Code, which provides that the failure of the accused to testify shall create no presumption against him, nor be the subject of any comment before the court or jury by the prosecuting attorney. There was certainly no direct reference in the remark to the failure of the accused to testify, and it would be a strained and unwarranted construction to hold it to be an indirect or implied comment on that subject. The objection is, therefore,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cantrell v. Com., 840269
...Case, 103 Va. 870, 1004, 49 S.E. 623, 630 (1905); Jackson's Case, 96 Va. 107, 112, 30 S.E. 452, 453 (1898); Sawyers v. Commonwealth, 88 Va. 356, 357, 13 S.E. 708, 708 (1891); Hopper, Stiers and Lemmon's Case, 47 Va. (6 Gratt.) 684, 685 (1849). Only one conviction has been reversed because o......
-
State v. Cox
...had collected insurance for successive fires, in order to show that the fire in question was of incendiary origin. In Sawyers v. Commonwealth, 88 Va. 356, 13 S.E. 708, it said: "Among the chief indicia which go to substantiate at once the corpus delicti and the guilt of the prisoner in a ca......
-
Natalini v. Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
... ... overinsured, has been held, in many cases, to be a ... circumstance tending to connect the owner with a fire ... Commonwealth v. Cooper, 264 Mass. 368, 162 N.E. 729; ... Commonwealth v. Bader, 285 Mass. 574, 189 N.E. 590; ... Smith v. California Ins. Co., 85 Me. 348, 27 A ... Mut ... Fire Ins. Co. et al., 189 A.D. 548, 179 N.Y.S. 352; ... Meily Co. v. London & Lan. Fire Ins. Co. (C. C. A.) ... 148 F. 683; Sawyers v. Commonwealth, 88 Va. 356, 13 ... S.E. 708; State of Iowa v. Millmeier, 102 Iowa, 692, ... 72 N.W. 275; Weiner v. AEtna Ins. Co., 127 Neb. 572, ... ...
-
State v. Wenger
...tended at least to some extent to connect the defendant with the fire. The ill will of defendant toward Steel, which, as held in Sawyers v. Comm., supra, is one of the indicia to substantiate defendant's guilt, was, we think, sufficiently shown, although counsel for defendant attempt to min......