State v. Barker

• Citation: 122 S.E. 494
• Decision Date: 15 April 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 11467.)
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: STATE. v. BARKER et al.

122 S.E. 494

STATE.
v.
BARKER et al.

(No. 11467.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 15, 1924.

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Barnwell County; H. F. Rice, Judge.

Carrie Barker and others were indicted for murder, convicted of manslaughter, and they appeal. New trial granted.

Brown & Bush, of Barnwell, for appellants.

R. L. Gunter, Sol., of Aiken, and Harley & Blatt, of Barnwell, for the State.

WATTS, J. "The defendants were tried at the May term of the court of general sessions for Barnwell county upon an indictment charging them with murder. The jury found all of the defendants guilty of manslaughter. A motion for a new trial was made by attorneys for the defendants and was overruled by the presiding judge. The defendants were thereupon sentenced to serve five years upon the public works of Barnwell county, or a like period in the state penitentiary. From the verdict and sentence, the defendants gave notice of intention to appeal.

"Just before the conclusion of the hearing of the testimony in the case the grand jury of the county came in and made its presentment; whereupon his honor, the presiding judge, then and there, in the presence of the petit jury engaged in the trial of this case, delivered at considerable length to the grand jury a strong and vigorous criticism of petit juries throughout the state of South Carolina for failure to convict, or for the making of mistrials in murder cases. His honor, the presiding judge, thereupon went into the facts in various cases that he had tried in the state where juries had acquitted defendants in murder cases where the plea of self-defense had been interposed by the defendants, and severely criticized the action of said juries, stating that in nearly every case that came along, the plea of self-defense was interposed, and acquittals in many cases were travesties upon justice. His honor, the presiding judge, also at said time and in said address, vigorously and strenuously criticized the petit juries for their actions and urged petit juries to convict, as a means of preventing homicide, where the evidence warranted a conviction."

[122 S.E. 495]

Exception 1 is:

"I. That his honor, the presiding judge, erred in making the remarks that he did to the grand jury in the presence of the petit jury charged with the trial of this case; such remarks being highly prejudicial to the right of the defendants and...