State v. Cannon

• Decision Date: 12 July 1897
• Citation: 27 S.E. 526,49 S.C. 550
• Parties: STATE v. CANNON.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

27 S.E. 526

49 S.C. 550

STATE v. CANNON.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 12, 1897

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Spartanburg county Ernest Gary, Judge.

Chris Cannon was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed.

Judge Gary charged the jury as follows:

"Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Jury: It is a matter of congratulation to you, after having listened so patiently not only to the evidence in this case, but to the arguments that have been made both on behalf of the defense and on the part of the state, that your labors are now drawing to a close; and I take, as an earnest of the sincerity of your labors, the attentive manner in which you have listened, as I said, not only to evidence, but to the arguments.

"The defendant in this case is indicted for the crime of murder, which is defined by the statute law of this state to be the unlawful killing of any person, with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. Now, under the rulings of the courts of this state, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the jury, there is very little law in the case. There are no special defenses set up, such as self-defense or alibi or those affirmative defenses which require a lengthy charge upon the law to the jury, but the defense set up here is 'Not guilty.' In other words, the defendant, by that plea, denies that he did the killing. It is necessary, then, that the state show that the deceased was murdered, and murdered by the defendant. In all cases the state is called upon to prove what is known as the 'corpus delicti,', which, in plain English, is that crime has been committed, and that the defendant did it. Now, your inquiry will be: Was the deceased, John H. Blassingame, murdered on the 11th of August, and, if so, did the defendant do it? In order to determine that, you will take into consideration what has been termed here 'circumstantial evidence.' Now, there exists in the minds of a great many jurors and a great many good citizens the view that they will not convict of the crime of murder upon circumstantial evidence. It is improper, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the jury, to entertain any such views as that. The law recognizes, on the criminal as well as on the civil side of the court, circumstantial evidence; and, from the very nature of existing affairs of society, it is necessary that circumstantial evidence should be relied upon, and it stands just as high in the eyes of the law as positive testimony if it brings conviction to the minds of the jurors. Now, you will bear in mind that there are two kinds of evidence,--positive, or direct, and circumstantial. Positive testimony is where, if A. were to testify to a fact that 'I saw B. kill C.,' that would be positive evidence. But a set of circumstances may be testified to which would lead you to come to that conclusion, although there might be no eyewitness to the killing. Therefore circumstantial evidence is where witnesses testify to a given state of facts, from which a jury are to draw a conclusion. Now, in this case the state relies upon the admissions of the defendant, and also a chain of circumstances, which is introduced for the purpose of corroborating the statement of the defendant. The law says it is never safe to convict upon the uncorroborated statement of a defendant. That means this: That, if the only evidence on the part of the state is that the defendant states that he had killed an individual, the law says that it is not safe to convict on that statement alone, uncorroborated; but, where a defendant makes an admission, it takes but slight evidence to make the corroboration.

"Now, you will take first into consideration: Did the defendant make a statement which would lead you to believe that he was in the house? Under what circumstances was he in that house? And from the fact that he was there, and the bullet holes appearing in the wall, as detailed here by the witnesses, are you satisfied that a murder was committed in the house, and was the defendant present? If you find that he was present, was he there alone, or was he there in concert with another? It is alleged here that the defendant was not there alone, but that he made a statement charging William Johnson--I believe was the name--with having done the shooting. I charge you that if there were two present, and they were there acting in concert, it matters not which one fired the fatal shot. If they were there to give aid or to render assistance the one to the other, the law would say in that instance that the hand of one was the hand of both. All are principals, and an accomplice in crime is just as guilty in the eyes of the law as the actual felon. To illustrate to you: If a burglary is being committed, and A. stands on the outside, while B. enters, and commits the burglary, while A. stands out, and watches near enough to give aid or render assistance if necessary, he is deemed in the eyes of the law as principal, and he is held to be just as guilty as is the actual felon who goes in and commits the robbery. Now, are you satisfied that this defendant was there present? If he was there on an unlawful mission, then he could not set up the plea that he acted in self-defense, because the law says, before one can set up the plea of self-defense, he must be without fault in bringing about the necessity to kill. So, if you find that the deceased, John H. Blassingame, was there for the purpose of protecting that house, and the defendant and an accomplice, or the defendant alone, entered the house for the purpose of robbery, and, being detected, there, undertook to defend themselves, they could not set up self-defense. They were in fault--evildoers in the start--in bringing about the necessity to kill. The plea of self-defense cannot enter under such a state of facts.

"Now, what do the circumstances convince you? You are the sole judges of the facts. The rule as to circumstantial evidence is this: that each circumstance must be consistent the one with the other, and must point so directly to the guilt of the accused as not to admit of any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt. That simply means this: that a circumstance would not be taken as a link in a chain of circumstantial evidence as against D. when the circumstance points to the guilt of C., who is not on trial; and a chain of circumstantial evidence is measured by the weakest link in it. To illustrate to you: If a pendulum were suspended by a chain, and in that chain there was a defective link, the strength of that chain would be the strength of that chain would be the strength of that weakest link in it. The chain would hold up no more than the weakest link in it. Whenever that link broke, the pendulum would fall. That is the test and measure of circumstantial evidence, that each circumstance must be consistent with some other circumstance, and they must point so directly to the guilt of the accused as not to admit of any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt.

"You have heard the witnesses detail the fact that, shortly after the shooting was heard in that house, they went in, and saw the prostrate form of Capt. Blassingame, and, after some investigation, the policemen proceeded to the house where this boy was staying, to his mother's house, and there found him shot. What does that circumstance satisfy you? If some one else shot him, if the circumstance point to the fact that some one else shot him,--gamblers over in Twitty's Grove,--that would not be a circumstance to connect him with the murder of Capt. Blassingame, if that circumstance points to the fact that he was shot by some one else; and that is what the law means when it says these circumstances must be consistent one with the other. Do you accept that theory, or do you accept the theory of the state, that, while in that house, he resisted, and while resisting, both parties shooting, he fired the fatal shot, and in that encounter got shot himself, and returned to his home? Does that satisfy you that he was in that house? Does that satisfy you that he participated in the murder of Capt. Blassingame,--in the killing of Capt. Blassingame? If so, then you would join the circumstances together, and the test is, do they satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that the state has made out its case? Now, whenever the minds of the jury have arrived at that stage, it matters not whether you have come to that conclusion from circumstantial or positive evidence. Do the facts that the state have proven here satisfy you that the deceased, John H. Blassingame, was murdered, and did the defendant do it? Now, if you are satisfied of that fact,--it matters not upon what testimony, whether circumstantial or positive,--if you are so satisfied, if your minds have arrived at that conclusion, then it would be your duty to find a verdict in accordance with such conclusion.

"Now, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt you might have upon any material fact of the case, necessary to make out the case on the part of the state; and, as stated to you by counsel, this is a case in which you can find a special verdict. If you find the defendant guilty, simply say 'Guilty,' which means guilty of the offense charged,--murder; and think that there are any extenuating circumstances suggested to you, or from any cause that you may see proper, you have the right to find a special verdict, recommend him to the mercy of the court. That recommendation of itself changes the punishment, if you find him guilty, and recommend him to the mercy of the court, which is imprisonment in the state penitentiary at hard labor for the period of his entire life. If you find that the element of murder is wanting,--has not been made out,--and

...