State v. Addt

• Decision Date: 01 February 1888
• Citation: State v. Addt, 4 S.E. 814, 28 S.C. 4 (S.C. 1888)
• Parties: State v. Addt.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

4 S.E. 814

28 S.C. 4

State

v.Addt.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

February 1, 1888.

„.

Cbiminal Law—Instkuctions—Opinion on Testimony.

On indictment for murder, the judge in his charge called attention to the fact that the prisoner, who had testified in his own behalf, was swearing for his own life, and asked "whether there was one in a thousand who, under such circumstances, could resist the inclination to sway from the truth;" and, speaking further of the prisoner, said: "He himself, as you see, is a one-armed man, and says he is otherwise weaky from bad health.He is not a large man.Now, gentlemen, you are bound to ask precisely this question; ' If that strong, powerful man knocked him down senseless on the ground, and was following it up m such a way as to endanger life, or inflict serious bodily harm, could that possibly have happened without serious bodily harm having: been inflicted upon him?' "Held, this language amounted to charging the jury in matters of fact, in violation of Const.S. C. art. 4, § 26.

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Lexington county; Pressly, Judge.

The respondent was Indicted and convicted for murder, and appealed therefrom, on exceptions to the charge.

Meetzer &Muller and W. Melton, for appellant.Mr. Solicitor Nelson, for the State.

McGowAN, J.The defendant was indicted for the murder of Josephus Swygert at a barbacue dinner given on the premises of one Rlsenger, of Lexington county, in August, 1886.There is before us no "case settled, " but instead, all the voluminous testimony, just as it was delivered on the stand.Briefly, it appeared that the deceased was one of those who had provided the barbacue dinner, and the defendant, a neighbor, was present as a patron.It

did not appear that there had been any previous quarrel between the parties; but during the day, when the deceased was at the pit, where the meat was being roasted, the defendant was seen to lean on him, so as to provoke the remark, "Don't push me into the hot ashes;" and at another time he put his hand, as if playfully, upon the shoulders of the little daughter of deceased, and acted as though he was going to push her into the pit.Towards the close of the feast the defendant approached J. C. Swygert, a brother of the deceased, at the lemonade stand, and proposed "to buy a piece of pork."He was told that the deceased, who was at the meat table, would sell it to him, but he declined making application to him; whereupon the brother went with him to the carving table, where the deceased was, and said to him: "Dixon [defendant] wishes to buy a piece of pork."He was told the pork was out, but there was a very nice piece of beef.This the defendant declined to take, and took up from the table a piece of mutton, and commenced crying it aloud, as if selling it at auction to the highest bidder.The deceased said, "Stop that; I don't want any foolishness here."Whereupon the defendant dropped the piece of meat, and retired, saying, as he went: "If you want anything come out here;" or something of that character.The deceased did follow him, and knocked him down with his fist, and as the defendant rose or was in the act of rising, he drew from his pocket a pistol, and discharged it at the deceased several times; two of the shots taking effect on his body and killing him almost immediately.The deceased was a stout muscular man, and the defendant was more feeble, and had but one arm.The plea was self-defense.

After much testimony, the case was submitted to the jury, and under the charge of the judge, which should appear in full in the report of the case, they found the defendant"guilty of manslaughter, " and he appeals to this court upon fourteen exceptions, which are also in the brief; but from the view which the court takes, it will not be necessary to state any of them here, except the last seven, which are as follows: "(8) Because his honor erred in charging the jury in respect to matters of fact, so as to control their discretion in determining the degree of credibility which they should attach to the testimony of the prisoner; and so as plainly to indicate the opinion of the court that the prisoner should be convicted of some offense; and so as to bias their judgment and influence and control their verdict against the prisoner.(9) Because his honor erred in charging the jury that the testimony of the prisoner on trial for his life must be received by the jury ' with very great allowance.Is there one man in a hundred—is there one man in a thousand, taking human nature as it comes—who, under these circumstances, can resist the inclination to sway from the truth? ' etc.(10) Because his honor erred in charging the jury in respect to matters of fact, that they might regard the conduct of the prisoner towards the deceased and towards his child as ' mere sport, ' not intended to irritate the deceased and provoke the quarrel, if noth-ing had happened afterwards; thereby inducing the jury to infer from the fatal result that, in the opinion of the court and in fact, the prisoner did mean by such conduct to irritate and provoke a quarrel, and thereby constraining the jury to deny to the prisoner an impartial and unbiased consideration of his plea of self-defense.(11) Because his honor erred in charging the jury upon matters of fact, that the prisoner was contradicted by all the other witnesses, all of whom were said to have agreed in the main as to what took place— ' the testimony of the prisoner standing alone, unsustained by a single witness, in reference to those circumstances going to make up a case of self-defense, ' etc.; whereas it is submitted that the testimony of the other witnesses does not agree in many particulars material to this defense, and that in many such particulars the testimony of the prisoner was sustained by several other witnesses, etc.(12) Because his honor erred in charging the jury, upon matters of fact, by impressing them with his own opinion, and thereby inducing them to find "that the prisoner could not have honestly believed that hewas in clanger of his life, or of serious bodily harm; for the reason that the prisoner being weak in strength and one-armed, and the deceased a strong and athletic man, the deceased did not, in fact, inflict serious bodily harm upon the prisoner; this, when according to the evidence, the deceased, without adequate provocation, while the weak one-armed man was walking away from him, had felled him to the ground by a powerful blow on the back of his head."(14) Because his honor erred in charging the jury as follows: '1 believe if a man has been murdered and it bo proved, and I do anything to let him escape, some of the blood of the murder rests on me.That is the way I feel about it.I do not intend to ever have anything of that sort to reflect upon in my afterlife.It would be a sad thought to me if I could believe that I had ever borne heavily upon an injured...