State v. Chandler

• Decision Date: 02 November 1923
• Docket Number: 11317.
• Citation: 119 S.E. 774,126 S.C. 149
• Parties: STATE v. CHANDLER.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

119 S.E. 774

126 S.C. 149

STATE v. CHANDLER.

No. 11317.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 2, 1923

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Greenville County; F B. Gary, Judge.

T. Jeff Chandler was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Exceptions 11, 12, 13, and 14 are as follows:

(11) Because his honor, the presiding judge, erred in allowing the solicitor to ask hypothetical question of the following witnesses: Dr. E. W. Pressley, Dr. F. G. James, Dr. L. L Richardson, and Dr. Stewart (witnesses for defendant), and Dr. Chipley and Dr. Taylor (witnesses for the state); said hypothetical question being composed in each instance of irrelevant statements, not based on nor found in the testimony, and not borne out by the facts of the case on trial.

(12) Because his honor, the presiding judge, erred in allowing the solicitor to repeatedly ask Dr. F. G. James, witness for defense, on cross-examination, about the Vaughn Case, and allowing the solicitor himself to make statements relative thereto, same being highly prejudicial to defendant before the jury.

(13) Because his Honor, the presiding judge, erred in allowing the state to introduce Policeman W. N. Johnson as a witness for the state, in reply to defendant's evidence, and ask said witness 'if defendant said a word about taking his children to the jail,' over objection of counsel for defense, on ground that same was not in reply to any evidence of defendant, and not in reply to any hypothetical question asked by the defense, the defendant himself never having been put on the stand, and the state naming no witness of the defense as the one sought to be contradicted by such evidence, and same being merely a contradiction of the state's own witnesses.

(14) Because his honor, the presiding judge, erred in allowing Dr S. J. Taylor, witness for the state, to testify in reply or to testify at all, as to his alleged examination of defendant and diagnosis thereof: (a) Same being forced on defendant and contrary to his will, and while unable to help himself or to resist the examination, and thereby in contravention of his constitutional rights, both state and federal, relative to forcing one to give evidence against himself; and (b) on ground that said examination, its disclosures, and physician's diagnosis was a privileged communication, which should not have been divulged by physician over defendant's objection.

Martin & Henry, of Greenville, for appellant.

Solicitor D. W. Smoak, of Greenville, for the State.

WATTS J.

"The defendant, T. Jeff Chandler, was tried before his honor, F. B. Gary, Presiding Judge, and a jury, at the March term of the court of general sessions for Greenville county, 1922, upon an indictment charging him with the murder of Rosie K. Bramlett. The homicide occurred on the 25th day of February and trial was begun on 21st day of March, 1922, and jury returned verdict, 'Guilty of murder,' on March 24, 1922. At and before the beginning of the trial a motion was made before the presiding judge by counsel for defendant, upon affidavit below, for a continuance of the case, on the ground that sufficient time had not been allowed in which to prepare for the trial of so important a case. This motion was overruled. At and before the beginning of the trial a motion was made before the presiding judge by counsel for defendant to have the defendant committed to the hospital for the insane for a period of 30 days to test his sanity, as provided for by Act No. ______ of the acts of the General Assembly of the state of South Carolina passed at the regular session of ______, said motion being based on the following affidavits."

Defendant by 23 exceptions alleges error and seeks reversal. These exceptions complain of error on the part of his honor in abusing his...