State v. Coleman
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 17 S.C. 473 |
| Parties | STATE v. COLEMAN. |
| Decision Date | 01 July 1882 |
17 S.C. 473
STATE
v.
COLEMAN.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jul. 22, 1882.
1. Exceptions to refusals to charge not considered, the requests so to charge appearing in the brief only in the exceptions themselves.
2. On motion in arrest of judgment, an indictment for murder that did not state where the deceased died, was held bad as well at common law as under those statutes that provide for cases where the wound was inflicted in one jurisdiction and death ensued in another, These statutes considered.
3. An indictment under a statute must closely follow the terms of the statute.
Before PRESSLEY, J., Laurens, February, 1882.
This was an indictment against Neel Coleman for the murder of his son by cruel treatment. The opinion states the case. There was no report by the presiding judge.
Messrs. Ball & Watts, for appellant.
Mr. Solicitor Duncan, contra.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. JUSTICE MCIVER.Under an indictment for murder, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter, and moved in arrest of judgment because there was no allegation in the indictment of any place where the deceased died. The motion was refused by the circuit judge, whereupon this appeal was taken, alleging error in such refusal. The defendant also appeals upon the ground that the circuit judge refused to charge certain propositions of law, but as it does not appear from the “Case” as presented for argument here that any request was made to charge these propositions, or any exception taken to the refusal so to charge, these grounds are not properly before us for consideration, and indeed were not urged in the argument here.
The only question, therefore, presented by this appeal is whether the omission to state in the indictment the place where the deceased died is a fatal defect. There can be no doubt that such an omission would have been fatal at common law,
[17 S.C. 474]
and the question then is narrowed down to the inquiry whether there are any statutory provisions which render such an allegation unnecessary. The statute relied on for this purpose is the Act of 1859 (12 Stat. 822), incorporated into the General Statutes (Chap. 128, Sections 19, 20 and 21), as amended by the Act of December 21st, 1880 (17 Stat. 336).
It will be observed that these statutory provisions do not purport to make any change in the rules of criminal pleading, but are simply designed to prescribe a place of trial in certain cases, where, as the law then stood, it was at least doubtful as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bostic v. Rives, 7421.
......In Knewel v. Egan, 1925, 268 U.S. 442, 45 S.Ct. 522, 69 L.Ed. 1036, the appellant had been convicted in a state court of the presentation of a false insurance claim in violation of a state statute. He sought in a habeas corpus proceeding in the United States ...Moreover, the apparent holding is inconsistent with Knewel v. Egan, supra. Chapman v. People, 1878, 39 Mich. 357, State v. Coleman, 1882, 17 S.C. 473, and State v. Blakeney, 1890, 33 S.C. 111, 11 S.E. 637, may be thought to say that the defect is jurisdictional, but they are ......
-
State v. Gregg, 17213
......Coleman, 17 S.C. 473; State v. Platt, 154 S.C. 1, 151 S.E. 206. When the fighting subsided and the other participants left the building, deceased or his lifeless body lay on the floor. The death wound was in the left lower chest and the liver was split. An ambulance was called and ......
-
State v. Turner
...... in order to charge a statutory offense, every ingredient. necessary to make up the crime must be alleged in the. indictment and proved by the prosecution. State v. Foster, 3 [82 S.C. 282] McCord, 442; State v. O'Bannon, 1 Bailey, 144; State v. Henderson, 1. Rich. Law, 184; State v. Coleman, 17 S.C. 473;. State v. Evans, 18 S.C. 137; State v. Jeter, 47 S.C. 2, 24 S.E. 889; State v. Jeffcoat, 54 S.C. 196, 32 S.E. 298. The portion of the. statute now under discussion is: "No conviction shall be. had if on trial it is proved that such woman was at the time. of the alleged offense ......
-
State v. Turner
......State v. Foster, 3 McCord, 442; State v. O'Bannon, 1 Bailey, 144; State v. Henderson, 1 Rich. Law, 184; State v. Coleman, 17 S. C. 473; State v. Evans, 18 S. C. 137; State v. Jeter, 47 S. C. 2, 24 S. E. 889; State v. Jeffcoat, 54 S. C. 190, 32 S. E. 298. The portion of the statute now under discussion is: "No conviction shall be had if on trial it is proved that such woman was at the time of the alleged ......