State v. Cooper

• Decision Date: 26 February 1948
• Docket Number: 16048.
• Parties: STATE v. COOPER.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

46 S.E.2d 545

212 S.C. 61

STATE v. COOPER.

No. 16048.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 26, 1948

W. D. Jenerette and S. R. Pridgen, both of Mullins and J. Malcolm McLendon, of Marion, for appellant.

J. Reuben Long, Sol., of Conway, for respondent.

OXNER Justice.

Upon an indictment charging him with the murder of his wife, Mamie Cooper, appellant was tried at the March, 1947, term of the Court of General Sessions of Marion County. He admitted killing his wife on November 11, 1946, by stabbing and cutting her with a knife, and pleaded self-defense.

The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty of murder and appellant was duly sentenced to death by electrocution. From this judgment, he appeals.

The first question to be considered is whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of murder. Appellant contends that the State failed to prove that the offense was committed with malice aforethought and that the highest degree of homicide shown by the evidence is that of manslaughter. The determination of this question necessitates a review of the testimony.

Appellant is a Negro. The record does not disclose his age. The deceased was between twenty-five and thirty years of age. She and appellant had been married approximately two years. During this period she left him on several occasions and they were living separate and apart just prior to the homicide. He was working at Marion and she was cooking for Mr. M. K McMillan and lived with three other Negro women in a house on the McMillan farm, which is located about two miles from Mullins. Appellant visited his wife there occasionally. After finishing his work for the week, appellant left Marion on Saturday and went to the home of his wife. On the following Monday afternoon between, 4 and 5 o'clock, he killed his wife in front of a house on the McMillan farm. Lou Alice Sparks, who lived with her husband and children in this house, and her mother, Arilla Crawford, who was visiting there, were present when the homicide occurred. These two Negroes testified as follows:

After finishing work on the afternoon in question, the deceased called by the Sparks house, which was located near her home and about five or ten minutes later appellant arrived. He immediately accused his wife of sending for Mr. McMillan for the purpose of having him put off the place. She denied doing so. During this argument Mr. McMillan drove into the yard and asked to see appellant, who then left the house and went into the yard to talk to Mr. McMillan. While they were talking, Arilla Crawford walked out on the porch and the deceased, who with Lou Alice Sparks remained inside, closed all the doors and windows. In a few minutes Mr. McMillan left and appellant returned to the house and inquired, 'What's all this about?'. Lou Alice Sparks thereupon told appellant that his wife was afraid of him and asked that he leave. Appellant replied, 'If you will let me come in, I won't raise a fuss.' The women refused to do so. Appellant then pulled and jerked a knob on the door and was finally able to get in. His wife immediately ran and appellant stabbed her in the back as she was leaving the house. The other two women pleaded with him to stop. The deceased was screaming. Appellant pursued her into the yard where he threw her down, placed his knees on her body, and continued to stab and cut. While he was doing so, Arilla Crawford sought to stop him and appellant undertook to cut her. After deceased had been cut and stabbed a number of times with a knife, appellant asked Arilla Crawford to open the door of her car so that he could carry his wife to a doctor. She replied that this would be futile as his wife was dead.

Mr. McMillan testified that appellant came to his home late Sunday afternoon seeking work and he told him that he would let him know the next day whether any work was available; that just as he was leaving home on Monday afternoon, one of the Negro women who lived with deceased stopped him and stated that the women in the house were afraid of appellant and wanted him to leave; that he then went to the home of the deceased and there ascertained that appellant was at the Sparks' house, a short distance away; that he proceeded to the Sparks home where he advised appellant that he could commence work on Wednesday morning but that the women in the house where his wife lived wanted him to leave; that appellant thanked him for the job and stated that he was agreeable to leaving the house in question; that appellant appeared calm and showed no signs of anger; and that at the conclusion of this conversation he left and was not present when the homicide occurred.

The physician who examined the body of the deceased testified that there were twelve wounds, three of which were of such serious nature that any one of them was probably sufficient to have caused death; that there were four stab wounds in the back and a stab wound in the neck; and that there were incised wounds on the legs, hip and various other parts of the body.

Appellant was the only witness for the defense. He testified that shortly after arriving at the Sparks house, his wife commenced quarreling with Arilla Crawford because on the day before he had driven Arilla in her car to Horry County to see her son; that shortly thereafter he asked his wife whether she had sent for Mr. McMillan and she denied doing so; that in a few minutes Mr. McMillan arrived and the conversation in the yard heretofore related took place; that after Mr. McMillan left he returned to the house and commenced talking to Arilla Crawford who was sitting on the porch; and that his wife came around the house, asked Arilla what they were talking about, became enraged, struck him, and they commenced to fighting. When appellant was asked on cross-examination why he cut his wife, he said: 'Well, I was mad at the time.' He stated that he was rejected for service in the army because he was of a 'nervous nature', and said that when he was engaged in the fight with his wife he did not know what he was doing. It is admitted that after the homicide appellant voluntarily came to Marion and surrendered to the officers.

We think the above facts and circumstances constitute sufficient evidence upon which to base a finding of murder. While malice is an essential ingredient of murder and in order to constitute that offense the killing must be done with 'malice aforethought', it is well established that malice need not exist for any particular length of time prior to the killing. The question was before us in the recent case of State v. Judge, 208 S.C. 497, 38 S.E.2d 715. We there quoted with approval the following from State v. Milam, 88 S.C. 127, 70 S.E. 447, 449: 'The authorities agree that it (malice) need not exist for any appreciable period of time before the commission of the act,--indeed, it may be conceived at the very moment the fatal blow is given. It is sufficient in law if the combination of the evil intent and act produce the fatal result.' The evidence here reveals a shocking and brutal killing and the attending circumstances were such as to justify a conclusion that it was done without legal justification, excuse, or extenuation.

Appellant did not employ counsel. When the Court convened on Monday, the presiding Judge appointed three members of the Marion County Bar to represent him and the case was set down for trial on Thursday. Section...