State v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 05 July 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10934. |
| Parties | STATE v. COOPER. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Greenville County Court; M. F. Ansel, Judge.
Fannie Cooper was convicted of slander, and she appeals. Affirmed.
Following are the exceptions of the defendant:
(1) That his honor erred in permitting testimony as to alleged slanderous statement made in July, 1920. Specification of error: The indictment charged that the slander occurred in July, 1921 and it was improper to permit the state to then offer evidence that the offense occurred in 1920, and to prove statements made a year earlier than the date fixed in the indictment; that there was a very material difference in time, and therefore his honor erred in permitting testimony as to what was said and done in July, 1920.
(2) That his honor erred in permitting the state to offer testimony in contradiction of the defendant by Mrs. Adeline Smith. The solicitor had, on cross-examination, finally forced the defendant to state the source of her information and on cross-examination she said that Mrs. Smith had given her the information upon which she founded her statement. The solicitor put up Mrs. Smith to contradict this statement. Specification of error: The matter brought out on cross-examination was collateral, and it was improper to contradict the defendant on a collateral statement adduced on cross-examination.
(b) One party is not permitted to ask question on collateral matter on cross-examination for the purpose of putting up witness later to contradict the witness.
(3) That his honor erred in refusing to allow defendant to cross-examine Mrs. Adeline Smith as to her bias against the defendant, in that the defendant's counsel asked the witness if her brother had not been put on the chain gang for two years for assault and battery upon the father of the defendant. Specification of error: It was proper to prove bad feeling between the family of the defendant and Mrs. Smith to show bias, and said question and answer was proper and admissible, and his honor erred in overruling the objection.
(4) That his honor erred in not charging the third request of the defendant, as follows: "Malice indicates a wicked heart and an ill will towards another, and the jury cannot find the defendant guilty unless it appears from the evidence that the words uttered by her were with malicious intent at the time, and were not done in hot anger or heat of passion." Specification of error: It being respectfully submitted that if a statement was made in heat and passion, without malice, it could not be a criminal slander under the law of South Carolina.
(5) That his honor erred in refusing to charge the sixth request of the defendant, as follows: "The jury is charged that, if the parties to this transaction within a few days thereafter reached an amicable and peaceful adjustment of their trouble and agreed that the signing of the contract was to end the matter, then the jury is charged that, unless the slander was repeated after the agreement was signed, there can be no conviction in this case." Specification of error: It being respectfully submitted that the said request was sound and proper and should have been charged.
(6) That his honor erred in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial upon the grounds set forth in the record; it being respectfully submitted that the defendant was entitled to a new trial for the errors specified.
Upon these grounds, we will ask the Supreme Court to reverse the judgment below.
Bonham & Price and T. E. La Grone, all of Greenville, for appellant.
W. E. Bowen, Co. Sol., and J. Robt. Martin, both of Greenville, for the State.
On the 19th day of January, 1922, the defendant, who is a young married woman, was tried under an indictment charging her with uttering the following slanderous words against Mrs. Mae Dacus in a quarrel between the defendant and E. M. Gilstrap, the brother of Mrs. Dacus:
"Mae Dacus, the sister of E. M....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bethea v. Young
... ... Codicil ... I, ... George W. Young, of Clinton, County and State aforesaid, do ... hereby make, publish and declare this as and for a Codicil to ... my last will and testament by me made on the 12th day of ... ...
-
State v. Stokes
... ... We perceive no good ... reason for waiving that rule in this case, and the exceptions ... must be overruled. Allen v. Cooley, 53 S.C. 80, 30 ... S.E. 721; Norris v. Clinkscales, 59 S.C. 243, 37 ... S.E. 821; Smith v. Mills, etc., 100 S.C. 120, 84 ... S.E. 422; State v. Cooper, 120 S.C. 280, 113 S.E ... 132; Sloan v. Lee, 121 S.C. 426, 114 S.E. 408 ... [133 ... S.C. 71] Exceptions 3 and 4 are directed to the contention ... that, after the trial court had sustained the defendant's ... objection to the solicitor's question, "Did you ever ... ...