State v. Bailey
| Decision Date | 23 December 1868 |
| Citation | 1 S.C. 1 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. MARTIN BAILEY AND CHARLES BAILEY. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
The Supreme Court has no power, in a criminal case, to set aside the verdict of a jury and grant a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict is unsupported by evidence.
A confession made by the prisoner was received in evidence, but upon its appearing that it had been obtained by undue means the presiding Judge ruled it out, and in his charge to the jury instructed them " that the confession was incompetent as evidence, and had been ruled out." Held , That this was equivalent, in effect, to an instruction to the jury, that the confession was not to be considered by them, or to have any weight or influence in their deliberations.
The presiding Judge stated, in his report, that he " instructed" the jury relative to the proper inference of fact to be drawn from certain portions of the evidence. Held , That it was not a necessary or reasonable inference, from the report, that the Judge did more than communicate his impressions, leaving the jury to accept or reject them; and, therefore, although an instruction as to a material fact that virtually displaces the proper functions of the jury is error, yet that no such error was committed in this case.
The Supreme Court has no power, in a criminal case, to set aside the verdict of a jury and grant a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict is unsupported by evidence.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT, LAURENS, MAY TERM, 1868.
Every thing necessary to a full understanding of this case is stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Sullivan , for appellant.
Todd Deputy Solicitor, contra.
Martin Bailey, one of the defendants, appeals from a conviction at Laurens District Court, May Term, 1868. Charles Bailey and two of the children of Martin Bailey were detected in the possession of stolen property, tending to fix upon them the charge of a larceny.
Certain circumstances tended, as was thought, to attach suspicion to Martin Bailey. A confession made by Martin was given to the jury; but upon its being discovered that there were grounds for supposing that it had been obtained by undue means, the Judge instructed the jury that the confession was incompetent.
A question of venue was raised. The evidence left to inference the question whether the place where the larceny was committed was within the District of Laurens. The Judge says " I thought that he, (the witness,) living in the District, near to Clinton, and attending to Mrs. Holland's (the complainant's) business, though he did not say that Mrs. Holland lives in the District, or that the smoke house (from which the property was stolen) was in this District, the only inference that could be reasonably drawn was, that Mrs. Holland's smoke house was in this District, and so instructed the jury."
The Judge charged the jury " that the confessions of Martin were incompetent as evidence, and had been ruled out; that the only circumstances that could lead them to conclude that Martin was engaged in the affair was, that the other three were his children, and that a fourth man was seen, but made his escape; that this was a suspicious circumstance, but did not amount to proof of guilt." The jury found a verdict of guilty, as to both defendants.
The first ground of appeal is, that there was no evidence against Martin to found a verdict of guilty upon. The authority of this Court to grant a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict is unsupported by evidence, is directly involved in the question thus raised.
The late Court of Appeals possessed undoubted power in such a case; and the present appeal was taken on the supposition that that Court would hear the case.
The foundation of the authority of this Court is Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution, and is in the following words: " The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction only in cases of Chancery, and shall constitute a Court for the correction of errors at law, under such regulations as the General Assembly may, by law, prescribe." A certain limited and defined original jurisdiction is conferred by the same Section, but having no bearing on the present question. Section 1, Article IV, partitioned the judicial power between the Supreme, two Circuit Courts, and certain local and subordinate Courts. Section 4 marks out the appropriate sphere of the Supreme Court under this partition of judicial power; and Section 15 defines the proper jurisdiction of Circuit Courts as follows: Section 18 declares: " The Court of General Sessions shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal cases which shall not be otherwise provided for by law." Section 9, Article XIV. declares as follows: " The General Assembly shall provide for the removal of all causes which may be pending when this Constitution goes into effect, to Courts created by the same."
Laying out of view matters originating in a Court of Equity, and which come here by appeal, and it is not difficult to understand, in regard to all actions and criminal proceedings, the relation of the Supreme and the Circuit Courts. The former is a Court for the correction of errors at law, and the latter Courts of general original jurisdiction.
When power over a verdict, to the extent of setting it aside, as against law and evidence, is not derived from statute authority, it resides in, and properly appertains to, a Court of original jurisdiction, and not to one deriving its jurisdiction through a writ of error.
The Court of King's Bench, at common law, exercised this power as an incident of its original jurisdiction in criminal cases. Blackstone says, (Com., Book 4, p. 361): " Yet in many instances, where, contrary to evidence, the jury have found the prisoner guilty, their verdict hath been mercifully set aside, and a new trial granted by the Court of King's Bench; " and that it was, at common law, denied to a Court having authority to correct error at law, appears sufficiently clear from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial