State v. Bramlett

• Decision Date: 11 July 1932
• Docket Number: 13446.
• Parties: STATE v. BRAMLETT.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

164 S.E. 873

166 S.C. 323

STATE v. BRAMLETT.

No. 13446.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 11, 1932

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Greenville County; M M. Mann, Judge.

Proceedings by C. R. Bramlett, opposed by the State, to expunge certain portions of presentment of grand jury and to purge grand jury of certain alleged disqualified members. From an order denying its motion, petitioner appeals.

Modified and case remanded, with direction.

Price & Poag and C. G. Wyche, all of Greenville, for appellant.

John M Daniel, Atty. Gen., Cordie Page and J. Ivey Humphrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., and L. J. Leatherwood, Sol., and D. W. Smoak, both of Greenville, for the State.

BONHAM J.

The appellant, at the times hereinafter set out, was, and is now, the sheriff of Greenville county. At the October, 1931, term of the court of general sessions for that county a "True Bill" against him was returned by the grand jury, upon an indictment which charged him with official misconduct in the particulars therein set forth. The case was not tried at that term of the court because the bill of indictment came in too late. It was continued at the January, 1932, term, on motion of the state's attorney. At the March, 1932, term, the appellant appeared in court and demanded a trial. The state's attorney resisted the motion, and, upon the ruling by the court that the case should be heard at the afternoon session of that day, March 14th, the indictment was "nolle prossed," with the statement by the solicitor that other indictments would be handed out. The grand jury completed its work March 15, and the solicitor announced that there were no other bills for the grand jury at that term. In the afternoon of March 16 the grand jury made its final presentment. At that time no indictment was pending against appellant, nor was any bill against him in the hands of the grand jury. Conceiving that certain features of this presentment were improper, and would work serious ill to the appellant, his counsel moved the presiding judge to expunge such parts from the record, and to purge the grand jury of certain alleged disqualified members. The motion was refused, but the matter was held open by the court. Thereafter, March 22d, appellant filed a special motion that the matter be reopened and the portions of the presentment referring to him be expunged from the record.

The motion was refused, and, from the order of refusal, this appeal is made.

There are six exceptions, but only two questions are made by them: (1) Did the presiding judge err in not expunging from the record the parts of the presentment of the grand jury which, it is alleged, injuriously reflected upon appellant? (2) Did his honor err in not sustaining appellant's motion to purge the grand jury?

It may well be questioned whether the order which this court is asked to review is appealable, but, since the state has not made that objection, and since the appeal involves a question touching the provision of our Constitution which guarantees to every person charged with crime (article 1, § 18) a speedy and fair and impartial trial by jury, we waive the question whether the order is appealable. It may be that the case falls within the category of cases to which Chief Justice Pope referred in the case of Rhodes v. Southern Ry., 68 S.C. 503, 47 S.E. 689, 692; upon the authority of the case of Capell v. Moses, 36 S.C. 559, 15 S.E. 711: "It is in only exceptional cases that this court views with approval an appeal from an interlocutory order. ***"

There seems to exist in the minds of many a misconception of the powers and duties of grand juries. It may not be inopportune at this time to define them.

The grand jury was: "At common law a jury composed of not less than twelve nor more than twenty-three duly qualified men, whose duty it is to inquire into charges of crime or mis-demeanor, to decide from evidence offered whether there is prima facie ground for criminal accusation, and thence to find a bill of indictment, or ignore the charge as the evidence heard may warrant." The National Encyclopedia Dictionary, vol. III, p. 367.

The number of grand jurors is fixed by statute or constitutional provision in each state. In this state it consists of eighteen.

"The Grand Jury is of very ancient origin in the history of England, going back many centuries. For a long time its powers were not clearly defined; and it would seem from the accounts of commentators on the laws of that country that it was at first a body that not only accused, but also tried public offenders. However this may have been in its origin, it was at the time of the settlement of this country an informing and accusing body only, without whose previous action no person charged with a felony could, except in certain special cases, be put upon his trial. And in the struggles which in those times arose in England between the powers of the King and the rights of the subject, it often stood as a barrier against persecution in his name." (Italics added.) 12 R. C. L. 1014.

"The Grand Jury, having chosen their foreman, are next instructed in the articles of their inquiry by a charge from the judge who presides upon the bench. They then withdraw to receive indictments preferred to them in the name of the sovereign, but at the suit of any private suitor; and they are only to hear evidence in behalf of the prosecution: for the finding of an indictment is only in the nature of an inquiry or accusation which is afterwards to be heard and determined: and the Grand Jury are only to inquire upon their oaths whether there is sufficient cause to call upon the party to answer it." (Italics added.) Blackstone's Commentaries, Bk. IV, c. 23.

"A Grand Jury is an informing and accusing body rather than a judicial trial." 20 Cyc. 1294.

It is the generally accepted rule in this jurisdiction that a grand jury has supervision of the enforcement of law and order, the preservation and protection of morals and social order, supervision of public offices, the inspection and examination of the books of such offices, and the conduct of them by the officers occupying them, and things of like import.

"To Grand Juries is committed the preservation of the peace of the country, the care of bringing to light for examination, trial and punishment, all violence, outrages, indecencies, and terror: Everything that may occasion danger, disturbances, or dismay to the citizens. Grand Juries are watchmen stationed by the law to survey the conduct of their fellow citizens, and inquire where and by whom public authority has been violated, or our constitution and laws infringed." (Italics added.) Wharton's Criminal Proc. vol. II (10th Ed.) pp. 1713, 1714.

In ordering the report expunged from the record in the case of the Matter of Osborne, 68 Misc. 597, 125 N.Y.S. 313 (cited in Ann. Cas. 1916E, 228, note), the court held that it has become a custom of almost invariable occurrence that the grand jury at the close of its term makes a presentment on some subject on which perhaps no evidence has been heard. This proceeds, no doubt, from the zeal of the members to promote the public welfare by calling attention to conditions which they think should be remedied. So long as they are confined to matters of general interest, they are harmless. *** But it is very different when the motives and conduct of the individual are impugned and he held to reprobation without an opportunity to defend his name and reputation, for it must be borne in mind that, if the gentlemen of the grand jury were to meet as an association of individuals and give expression to the sentiments expressed in the presentment, little attention would be paid to them, and a healthy regard for the responsibility of utterances injurious to the individual would, in all probability, restrain unfounded and exaggerated statements. The injury arises from a prevalent belief that a grand jury making the presentment speaks with great authority, and acts under the sanction of the court, thereby giving to its deliverances a solemnity which impresses the public. This is a grave error. The powers and duties of a grand jury are defined by law. No matter how respectable or eminent citizens may be who compose the grand jury, they are not above the law, and the people have not delegated to them arbitrary or plenary powers to do that under an ancient form which they have not a legal right to do.

It is seen that grand juries have large inquisitorial powers. But those powers are not unlimited, and they must be exercised for the purpose of presenting offenders to the proper officers for proper legal proceedings against them, or for the finding of bills of indictment; as, for instance, the calling to the attention of the proper authorities conditions which are in the nature of a menace to good morals, or the peace and health of communities. Grand juries may by presentment bring to the attention of the court and officers of the law the condition of roads, bridges, public buildings, schools, school buildings, and matters of a like nature.

But a grand jury transcends its powers and exceeds its duty when in its presentment it expresses its opinion of the force and effect of the evidence which it has heard, ex parte, or has itself collected in its investigations, or when it discusses that evidence, and/or, when it presents an officer or person by name, and with words of censure and reprobation, without presenting him for indictment, or without finding a true bill against him on a bill of indictment in its hands. Even then it should be careful to refrain from any expression of opinion of the guilt of the person, or any words of condemnation. The reason for this rule of law is obvious.

The Constitution...