State v. Brown

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: JONES, J.
• Citation: State v. Brown, 60 S.E. 945, 79 S.C. 390 (S.C. 1908)
• Decision Date: 20 March 1908
• Parties: STATE v. BROWN.

60 S.E. 945

79 S.C. 390

STATE v. BROWN.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 20, 1908

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Greenville County Geo. W. Gage, Judge.

Eulus Brown was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

B. M Shuman, for appellant.

Julius E. Boggs, for the State.

JONES J.

The defendant, Eulus Brown, indicted for the murder of Garvin Black in Greenville county on March 27, 1907, was found guilty, with recommendation to mercy, and received sentence of life imprisonment.

Appellant's three exceptions relate to portions of the charge given by the presiding judge. We quote the relevant charge, and place within brackets the portions to which exception has been taken: "Where a man kills another to save his life or his body from serious harm, he is excusable. Did Brown kill Black to save his life or his body from serious harm? If he did, the law excuses him. The language of the law is: The peril of his life must be imminent, hanging over him, and he strikes, and strikes to save himself, because there is nothing else to do, the law excuses him. And he must not strike too quick. We do not make laws for overnervous men, and they must not get scared and strike quicker than a reasonable man would. [You must hold him to the conduct of the average man, of average courage and prudence, and, if he falls below that, he is guilty, no matter whether he thought he was going to be killed or not.] Now, would the average man of average courage and prudence placed in the same situation and under the circumstances that Brown was, come to the same conclusion that he was going to be killed, or that serious harm was about to be done to his body, and did Brown think that? The question is: Why did Brown kill Black, in all honesty and common sense? If he did it to save himself, he ought to be acquitted. If he didn't do it to save himself, in all justice he ought to be convicted. It is his duty to prove by the preponderance of the testimony that he did it in self-defense. Yet, if it leaves you in doubt as to his guilt, you should write a verdict of not guilty. [If you are not satisfied that he is not guilty by the preponderance of the evidence, then you go on and inquire whether or not it is murder or manslaughter.] 'Murder' is the killing of a human being with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied-a heart where the devil rules a man-and if the killing was not out of that sort of a heart, it is not murder. [Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either expressed or implied, and in sudden heat and passion. Where a man strikes at one and dethrones his reason, and he strikes and kills under that provocation, that is manslaughter. Did he do that? If so, it is manslaughter.]"

The contention as to the first indicated portion of the charge is that it is erroneous because, if the defendant thought he was going to be killed by the deceased, and shot deceased to save his own life, he would not be guilty of murder, even though the circumstances were such that a man...