State v. Aughtrey

• Decision Date: 01 May 1897
• Parties: STATE v. AUGHTREY.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

27 S.E. 199

49 S.C. 285

STATE

v.AUGHTREY.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 1, 1897.

Homicide—Appeal—Rehearing.

A rehearing will not be granted on the ground that the court did not pass on the prejudicial effect of irrelevant evidence that defendant said: "She wants me to go to her room. (Objected to.) I'll be d——d if I don't, if I have to kill him, "—and that the witness then stated that he did not know what woman defendant meant, though the portion relating to the woman was irrelevant, since no objection appeared to the testimony as to the threat to kill somebody, and such testimony was competent, and might, when connected with other testimony, become relevant.

On rehearing. Petition dismissed.

For prior reports, see 26 S. E. 619, 884.

PER CURIAM. The petition for a rehearing in this case is based solely upon the ground that this court, in its opinion affirming the judgment, had overlooked the fact that certain testimony, the admission of which constituted the basis of the twenty-seventh exception, was not objected to when it was offered, whereas the "case" shows that such testimony was, in fact, objected to, and, though irrelevant in the shape in which it appeared as stated in the opinion, the court did not go on to consider whether the reception of such irrelevant testimony was hurtful to the appellant, as it is claimed should have been done. To understand precisely the question made by this petition, it is necessary to reproduce here exactly what occurred in the court below when the testimony was offered as it appears in the "case" as well as in the petition for rehearing, as follows: The witness E. B. Moore testified that the appellant said, after exhibiting a note: "I'll be damned if this ain't a ticklish point. She wants me to go to her room. (Objected to.) I'll be damned if I don't, if I have to kill him." The witness immediately added: "I have no idea who he meant. He said it was his girl. Didn't know he was keeping a woman." From this it will be seen that, while objection was taken to the first part of this testimony, —that which contained the invitation from the woman to go to her room, — which might very well be regarded as irrelevant, and not hurtful to appellant, yet. there was no objection to that part of the testimony expressing a determination "to kill him." Who, does not appear from this particular testimony, which was much more likely to prove hurtful to the appellant, as it might, when connected with other testimony in the case,...