State v. Brewington, 20246

Decision Date21 June 1976
Docket NumberNo. 20246,20246
Citation226 S.E.2d 249,267 S.C. 97
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Lindbergh BREWINGTON, Jr., Appellant.

Ray P. McClain, Charleston, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Joseph R. Barker and Staff Atty. Perry M. Buckner, Columbia, and Solicitor J. Dupre Miller, Bennettsville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Appelalnt was convicted of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature

Appellant was convicted of assault and suspended upon service of seven (7) years, with five (5) years probation. He has appealed, charging that he is entitled to a new trial because of alleged erroneous rulings relative to the admissibility of certain testimony of an accomplice and of the doctor who treated the victim. In the alternative, he asks that the cause be remanded for sentencing under the Youthful Offender Act. While the issues raised require some comment, the clear lack of any meritorious ground of appeal justifies disposition of the matter without oral argument.

On the trial of the case, one Leon Bethea testified in appellant's behalf. Bethea had previously pled guilty to assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and had been sentenced in connection with the same incident for which appellant was being tried. It was not disputed that appellant was at the scene with Bethea at the time of the attack in question. The evidence was in conflict as to whether appellant had participated in the assault and the extent of the injuries to the victim. The victim testified that both appellant and Bethea assaulted him. However, Bethea testified that he alone had struck the victim and that, to his knowledge, appellant did not participate in the assault.

During cros-examination of Bethea, the solicitor was permitted, over objection, to elicit the fact that Bethea had previously entered a plea of guilty to assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature in connection with the incident in question and was at that time serving the sentence imposed.

Appellant was indicted for assault and battery with intent to kill, but a directed verdict as to that offense was granted at the close of the State's case, leaving the charge of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. The trial judge also submitted the lesser included offense of simple assault and battery.

It is contended that the prior guilty plea of Bethea, the accomplice, was irrelevant to a determination of the guilt of appellant and its admission highly prejudicial since there was a question of the degree of the offense.

Since it is the function of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, 'as a general rule, anything having a legitimate tendency to throw light on the accuracy, truthfulness, and sincerity of a witness may be shown and considered in determining the credit to be accorded his testimony,' 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 460; and 'on cross-examination, any fact may be elicited which tends to show interest, bias, or partiality' of the witness, 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 560a.

The testimony showed the Bethea and appellant were present at the time of the assault and, therefore, the extent of participation by each and their relationship became relevant inquiries. As pointed out by the trial judge, Bethea's testimony was for the purpose of exculpating appellant by taking full blame for the assault. Since Bethea was seeking to accept full responsibility, testimony of his previous plea and sentence was properly admitted as it might affect his interest, bias, or motive. Testimony that he had previously pled guilty and had been sentenced might possibly bolster his testimony that he alone committed the crime; or, on the other hand, since he had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Smalls v. State
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 7, 2018
    ...cross-examination, any fact may be elicited which tends to show interest, bias, or partiality’ of the witness." State v. Brewington , 267 S.C. 97, 101, 226 S.E.2d 249, 250 (1976) (quoting 98 C.J.S. Witnesses §§ 460, 560a ). "Rule 608(c) [of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence] ‘preserves [......
  • State v. Brouwer
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 23, 2001
    ...for similar offenses are among a wide variety of factors which may be considered in determining a proper punishment. State v. Brewington, 267 S.C. 97, 226 S.E.2d 249 (1976). There is no requirement of law that defendants charged with similar offenses be given the same punishment. State v. G......
  • State v. Gillian
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 28, 2004
    ...of the witness. Mizzell, 349 S.C. at 331,563 S.E.2d at 317; State v. Starnes, 340 S.C. 312, 531 S.E.2d 907 (2000); State v. Brewington, 267 S.C. 97, 226 S.E.2d 249 (1976). The appropriate question under a Confrontation Clause analysis is whether there has been any interference with the defe......
  • State v. Starnes
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 8, 2000
    ...cross-examination, any fact may be elicited which tends to show interest, bias, or partiality' of the witness." State v. Brewington, 267 S.C. 97, 101, 226 S.E.2d 249, 250 (1976)quoting 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 560a (1957). A witness' romantic relationship with a party is a source of potential ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Rule 608. Evidence of Character, Conduct and Bias of Witness
    • United States
    • South Carolina Evidence Annotated (SCBar) (2019 Ed.) Chapter 1 South Carolina Rules of Evidence Article VI. Witnesses
    • Invalid date
    ...discretion of the trial judge. Id. Subsection (c) was added to address impeachment by showing bias or impartiality. State v. Brewington, 267 S.C. 97, 226 S.E.2d 249 (1976); North Greenville College v. Sherman Const. Co., Inc., 270 S.C. 553, 243 S.E.2d 441 (1978). Annotations Rule 608 608 Ge......
  • Rule 608. Evidence of Character, Conduct and Bias of Witness
    • United States
    • South Carolina Evidence Annotated (SCBar) Chapter 1 South Carolina Rules of Evidence Article VI. Witnesses
    • Invalid date
    ...discretion of the trial judge. Id. Subsection (c) was added to address impeachment by showing bias or impartiality. State v. Brewington, 267 S.C. 97, 226 S.E.2d 249 (1976); North Greenville College v. Sherman Const. Co., Inc., 270 S.C. 553, 243 S.E.2d 441 (1978). Annotations Rule 608 608 Ge......
  • Rule 608. Evidence of Character, Conduct and Bias of Witness
    • United States
    • South Carolina Evidence Annotated (SCBar) (2021 Ed.) Chapter 1 South Carolina Rules of Evidence Article VI. Witnesses
    • Invalid date
    ...discretion of the trial judge. Id. Subsection (c) was added to address impeachment by showing bias or impartiality. State v. Brewington, 267 S.C. 97, 226 S.E.2d 249 (1976); North Greenville College v. Sherman Const. Co., Inc., 270 S.C. 553, 243 S.E.2d 441 (1978). Annotations Rule 608 608 Ge......
  • A. Homicide
    • United States
    • The Criminal Law of South Carolina (SCBar) Chapter II Offenses Against the Person
    • Invalid date
    ...is "among a wide variety of factors which may be properly considered in determining a proper punishment." State v. Brewington, 267 S.C. 97, 103, 226 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1976). In Charping, the Court found the comparison "inapposite" because in Brewington, which was not a death penalty case, th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT