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 |
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: 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Kobli
...116 So. 206; People v. Buck, 1941, 46 Cal.App.2d 558, 116 P.2d 160. 12 Tilton v. State, 1908, 5 Ga.App. 59, 62 S.E. 651; State v. Adams, 1915, 100 S.C. 43, 84 S.E. 368. 13 People v. Swafford, 1884, 65 Cal. 223, 3 P. 809; People v. Kerrigan, 1887, 73 Cal. 222, 14 P. 849; Benedict v. People, ......
-
State v. Lawrence
...deserve special attention and may be excluded from the courtroom in trials of a salacious nature. State v. Schmit, supra; State v. Adams, 100 S.C. 43, 84 S.E. 368; People v. Byrnes, 84 Cal.App.2d 72, 190 P.2d 290, 291. In other words, courts generally hold that Part of the public may for go......
-
State v. Schmit, 39079
...State, supra; Lide v. State, 133 Ala. 43, 31 So. 953. See, Davis v. United States, supra.10 Davis v. United States, supra.11 State v. Adams, 100 S.C. 43, 84 S.E. 368; Minn.St. 631.04.12 Hogan v. State, 191 Ark. 437, 86 S.W.2d 931; Grimmett v. State, 22 Tex.App. 36, 2 S.W. 631; Callahan v. U......
-
State v. Danelly
...without specification of error. Vann v. Howle, 44 S.C. 546, 22 S.E. 735; Weatherly v. Covington, 51 S.C. 55, 28 S.E. 1; State v. Adams, 100 S.C. 43, 84 S.E. 368. Furthermore, when that part of the charge quoted in exception is considered in connection with the entire charge as to the plea o......