State v. Chambers
Decision Date | 17 June 1940 |
Docket Number | 15104. |
Citation | 9 S.E.2d 549,194 S.C. 197 |
Parties | STATE v. CHAMBERS et al. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Hoke B. Black and Clarence A. Cappell, both of Greenville, for appellants.
Hubert E. Nolin, Sol., and W. E. Bowen, both of Greenville, for respondent.
The following statement is taken from the agreed transcript of record in this appeal:
There are five exceptions but appellants argue them under four questions which will be considered seriatim.
(Exception I)
The clothing worn by the prosecutor at the time of the affray was identified by witnesses for the State and admitted in evidence over the objection of the defendants made upon the ground that they were incompetent in view of the fact that the attending physician had already testified to the nature, number and location of the wounds upon the body of the prosecuting witness. Appellants cite in support of their position that such admission in evidence of the clothing was prejudicial error, 13 R.C.L. 928, a Nebraska case and several Texas cases. However, these authorities appear to be illustrative of a minority rule. In R.C.L., immediately preceding the quotation referred to by appellants in their argument, is found the following: "It is settled by numerous authorities that the clothing worn by the deceased at the time of his death may be introduced in evidence, proof first having been given of the identity of the articles of apparel and of their unchanged condition."
Furthermore the new text, American Jurisprudence, the successor of Ruling Case Law, states at page 602 of Volume 20, as follows: "Clothing of the accused or of the victim of a crime may be exhibited."
The only case touching the subject in this State which has come to our attention is State v. Symmes, 40 S.C. 383, 19 S.E. 16, 19, where clothing of the deceased was offered in evidence by the State in reply and the exception of the appellant thereabout was as follows: "Because the judge erred in overruling the *** objection to the introduction by the state's solicitor of the 'shirt and pants' of the deceased in reply; the defense having closed, and the introduction of said garments not having been offered in evidence by the state in the opening of the case." The exception was overruled and it was stated by the Court that the objection to the admissibility was that the introduction of the clothing in evidence was after the defense had closed and was not in reply to any evidence offered in behalf of the defense. Thus it is at least implied that there would have been no question of the admissibility of the clothing had it been offered by the State as a part of its case.
It is gathered from the meager record here that the doctor who had treated the prosecutor for his admittedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Deas
... ... therefore an acquittal of malice. Thus whether the charge of ... the court was correct in that respect is now an academic ... question and there could have been no prejudicial error, if ... error at all, on that account. State v. Chambers, ... 194 S.C. 197, 9 S.E.2d 549 ... The ... third and final question made by appellants, including their ... remaining exceptions, alleges error arising out of the ... following circumstances. At the outset of his charge the ... court, evidently anticipating the submission ... ...
-
State v. Robinson
... ... contention that the photograph prejudiced the jury against ... the defendant. Everything depicted by the photograph was, ... subsequent to its introduction, testified to in detail by the ... witnesses." ... Similarly, ... in the case of State v. Chambers et al., 194 S.C ... 197, 9 S.E.2d 549, one of the questions to be determined by ... this Court was whether there was error in admitting into ... evidence, over objection, the bloody clothing of the ... prosecutor. In that case this Court used the following ... language on page 203 of the ... ...