State v. Andrews
| Decision Date | 19 February 1906 |
| Parties | STATE v. ANDREWS. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Saluda County; Purdy Judge.
Wis Andrews was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Affirmed.
C. J Ramage and Croft & Salley, for appellant. R. A. Cooper, for the State.
The defendant, Wis Andrews, shot and killed Willis Daniel on May 29, 1904, immediately after a religious service at Reedy Branch church, in Saluda county. Upon his trial for murder the killing being undisputed, the issues were whether the defendant was guilty of murder or of manslaughter, or killed in self-defense. From conviction and sentence for manslaughter, the defendant appeals, alleging errors in the admission and exclusion of evidence, and in the charge to the jury.
1. For the purpose of showing that the deceased was of violent disposition, counsel for the defense asked the witness, Mack Tillman, these questions: "Do you know that Willis was tried for assisting or being an accessory to the killing of Narrow Bell?" "Did you hear of his being in the Narrow Bell killing?" The general reputation of the deceased for violence might have been proved, but not particular acts of violence, unless such specific acts were so connected in point of time or occasion with the fatal rencontre as to produce reasonable apprehension of grievous bodily harm and reduce the other party to the apparent necessity to slay in self-defense. State v. Smith, 12 Rich. Law 443; State v. Dill, 48 S.C. 249, 26 S.E. 567; State v. Thrailkill, 71 S.C. 142, 50 S.E 551. No such connection was here shown.
2. Even if it had been the right of the defendant to prove deceased had been tried for murder, it was incumbent upon him to introduce the record as the best evidence of that fact. Certainly it could not be proved by mere hearsay. State v. Williamson, 65 S.C. 246, 43 S.E. 671. The exceptions as to the exclusion of the answers to these questions are, therefore, not well founded.
3. The defendant next alleges it was error to allow the solicitor to ask the defendant on cross-examination, "Where is that woman you and he [[[deceased] were loving and you and he were mad with each other about?" The defendant in response denied that there was any ill-feeling between himself and deceased about a woman, or that they had ever had any unpleasantness on that account, and the prosecution made no further effort to prove any such motive for the killing; the defendant, therefore, was not prejudiced. But the question was competent on the cross-examination for the purpose of showing motive; the defendant having the right, however, to refuse to answer if the answer would have tended to criminate him. State v. Wiliamson, supra. The record does not indicate that the witness claimed the right to refuse to answer on this ground.
In the fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth and tenth exceptions, the defendant takes from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Waldron
... ... 1082, and numerous cases cited in the note to ... this case reported in 14 L.R.A. (N. S.) 708. See, ... particularly, the following cases: State v. Elkins, ... 63 Mo. 159; State v. Ronk, 91 Minn. 419, 98 N.W ... 334; State v. Mims, 36 Or. 315, 61 P. 888; State ... v. Andrews", 73 S.C. 257, 53 S.E. 423; People v ... Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 68 N.E. 112; Hardgraves v ... State, 88 Ark. 261; [ 1 ] Harrison v. Commonwealth, ... 79 Va. 374, 52 Am.Rep. 634; Sturgeon v. Commonwealth ... (Ky.) 102 S.W. 812; Warrick v. State, 125 Ga ... 133, 53 S.E. 1027 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
State v. Sella
... ... evidence of general reputation of the deceased in the ... community in which he lived than by particular acts or ... instances which were not a part of the res gestae nor ... connected therewith. Dupree v. State, 33 Ala. 380, ... 73 Am. Dec. 422; Andrews v. State, 152 Ala. 16, 44 ... So. 696; Campbell v. State, 38 Ark. 498; Croom ... v. State, 90 Ga. 430, 17 S.E. 1003; Thornton v ... State, 107 Ga. 683, 33 S.E. 673; Andrews v ... State, 118 Ga. 1, 43 S.E. 852; Pratt v. State, ... 56 Ind. 179; State v. Fontenot, 50 La. Ann. 537, ... ...
-
State v. Taylor, 25637.
...done in sudden heat and passion upon sufficient provocation without premeditation or malice, it would be manslaughter." State v. Andrews, 73 S.C. 257, 53 S.E. 423 (1906). The doctrine has most often been applied in situations where the defendant and decedent bear a grudge against each other......
-
State v. Hill
...in establishing the temper of the deceased at the time of the fatal encounter. State v. Dean, 72 S.C. 74, 51 S.E. 524; State v. Andrews, 73 S.C. 257, 53 S.E. 423; State v. Springfield, 86 S.C. 323, 68 S.E. The appellant does not point out, either in his exceptions or argument, the particula......