State v. Adams

• Decision Date: 10 February 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 8996.)
• Citation: 84 S.E. 368,100 S.C. 43
• Parties: STATE. v. ADAMS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

84 S.E. 368

100 S.C. 43

STATE.

v.ADAMS.

(No. 8996.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 10, 1915.

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Florence County; C. J. Ramage, Special Judge.

Luke Adams was convicted, and appeals.Dismissed.

Defendants' exceptions are:

It is respectfully submitted that his honor, Judge C. J. Ramage, erred and invaded the right guaranteed to the accused by the Constitution of the United States and of this state, of a public trial, by putting "all the negroes and boys out of the courthouse" during the trial.

It is respectfully submitted that his honor erred in permitting the witness W. W. Floyd to testify to an alleged "acknowledgment, " prior to the birth of the child, over the objection of defendant, because said alleged statement was made prior to the date of said birth of the child.

It is respectfully submitted that his honor erred in refusing to defendant a new trial upon the ground that there was no scintilla of evidence that the child was likely to become a burden to the county.

It is respectfully submitted that his honor erred in charging the jury as follows: "I charge you that it is for you to say whether or not you will take the testimony of the prosecutrix; whether or not you will believe her.That is a matter entirely for you.I charge you that, in a prosecution of any kind in a court of sessions, the only matter is to find out what is the truth of the matter.The jury may in its discretion believe one witness in preference to a dozen.A witness in a matter of this kind does not have to be corroborated.If you believe a party is telling the truth, you may accept the statement of that witness in preference to the others.* * * Mr. Early: I would ask your honor to charge the jury that a verdict may be had on the uncorroborated testimony of the mother.The Court: Yes, I have already practically charged that."Because:

I.It is reversible error for the trial judge to charge the jury that a conviction may be had upon the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix in a bastardy proceeding, it being respectfully submitted that it is tbe duty of the trial judge to advise the jury against a conviction upon the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix.

II.Said above-quoted charge invaded the province of the jury in violation of the constitutional inhibition, being a charge in respect to matter of fact, in that it advised the jury how to weigh and consider the evidence.

III.It is respectfully submitted that the...