State v. Bennett

• Decision Date: 30 January 1894
• Citation: 18 S.E. 886,40 S.C. 308
• Parties: STATE v. BENNETT et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

18 S.E. 886

40 S.C. 308

STATE v. BENNETT et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 30, 1894

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Berkeley county; James F. Izlar, Judge.

Grant Bennett and Peter Burno, alias Dick Burno, were convicted of murder, and appeal. Affirmed.

B Pressley Barron, for appellants.

Mr Jersey, for the State.

McGOWAN J.

The defendants were charged with the crime of murder, in wrecking a passenger train on the South Carolina Railroad at Lincolnville, in the county of Berkeley, of the state of South Carolina, on the night of November 28, 1891, and thereby causing the death of one Mason Parker on the said passenger train. The cause came on to be heard before his honor, Judge Izlar, and a jury. There was much testimony which is all printed in the record, including that of an employed detective. Under the charge of the judge, the jury found both the defendants guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. The trial judge refused a motion for a new trial, and thereupon the defendants appeal to this court to reverse the judgment below upon the following grounds: "First. Because his honor erred in refusing to charge as requested, to wit: 'That the testimony of the detective is to be received with great caution and distrust, by reason of the motives and inducements to secure a conviction being different from those of the good citizen under unselfish influences.' Second. Because his honor erred in refusing the motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, there being no sufficient testimony to corroborate the incredible testimony of the detective, the witness Bob. Lee, who was evidently the tool of the other detective, Weinbush. Third. Because, had the defendant Bennett made the confession, as testified to by the detective Weinbush, it was incompetent evidence to affect the defendant Burno; and, eliminating this testimony, there was no evidence to support the verdict. Fourth. Because his honor erred in refusing the motion for a new trial, predicated on the verdict of the jury recommending the parties convicted to the mercy of the court, and the following affidavit: 'The State of South Carolina, Berkeley County. Personally appeared Phillip H. Hutchinson, who, being duly sworn, says that he was a member of the jury on the trial of the above stated case at the present term of the court; that he was not satisfied of the guilt of the prisoners, and only consented to the verdict because he believed that the recommendation to mercy would secure the pardon of the prisoners or a commutation of the sentence which should be passed. [Signed] P. H. Hutchinson. Sworn to before T. G. Venning, N. P. "'

As to the first exception, the judge did charge that the credibility of all witnesses is for the jury; "and in passing upon the credibility of witnesses, and the weight which you will attach to their testimony, you must consider all the circumstances,--their opportunity for knowing what they testify to, their conduct and demeanor upon the witness stand, the influences under which they testify, the inducements held out to them, and everything which is calculated to bias and influence their views and judgment,--and then say what weight you will give to their evidence. In this case you will consider the fact that the confessions in this case were made to a detective who was working up the case, and whose compensation depends upon the result of the trial. The testimony of the detectives should be received like that of other witnesses, and weighed in the light of all the surrounding circumstances," etc. This was not in the precise terms of the request to charge, but it answered the same principle...