State v. Davis
| Decision Date | 03 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | 12167. |
| Parties | STATE v. DAVIS. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Fairfield County; J K. Henry, Judge.
Jim Davis was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded for change of venue and a new trial.
L. G Southard, of Spartanburg, for appellant.
J Lyles Glenn, Jr., Sol., of Chester, and W. D. Douglas, of Winnsboro, for the State.
The defendant, Jim Davis, was tried for murder in Fairfield county and was found guilty, with recommendation to the mercy of the court.
He now appeals to this court, and, among other assignments of error contends that the court erred in refusing to grant his motion for a change of venue.
By his verified petition he set forth the grounds upon which such motion was based, to wit, that the homicide was followed by intense excitement in Fairfield county; that for several days thereafter he was hunted by bands of armed men, intense feeling being manifested against him, and that members of these bands threatened him with death on sight; that the deceased was very popular, and a man of standing and importance in the county, being a member of a large and influential family, the members of which were working to influence sentiment for defendant's conviction; that, following the homicide, the Governor of South Carolina, being fearful of violence to him, ordered that he be held in the state penitentiary for safe-keeping until a few days before the date set for his trial; and that. although the attorneys at law practicing at Winnsboro were canvassed, and their services sought in his defense, and although he was in position to pay them a fee for their services, still he was unable to procure counsel in Winnsboro to represent him or aid him in the preparation of his case, in selecting a jury, and otherwise, the reason being that "they were fearful on account of the Scott family and its relations being so large and numerous, and with their tremendous influence in Fairfield county, and on account of the terrible prejudice existing against petitioner that their law practice in Fairfield county would be practically ruined, and that they would hereafter suffer irreparable injury on account of the same."
The defendant's petition was supported, in part, by the affidavit of his attorney, Mr. Southard, who stated that, as counsel for the defendant, he could not obtain assistance of local counsel even for checking up the jury list, and that the reasons given for the attorney's refusal to aid him in any way were the number and far-reaching influence of the relatives of the deceased; and that he, Mr. Southard, is a total stranger in Fairfield county.
By its return the state did not attempt to controvert the statement of facts alleged in this petition, but offered affidavits of six citizens of Fairfield county to the effect that, although sentiment had been strong against the defendant, it had subsided, and that "in their judgment they thought that the defendant could obtain a fair and impartial trial in Fairfield county."
It is true, as stated in State v. Jackson, 110 S.C. 273 96 S.E. 416, The alleged facts set forth in the petition were indicative of an atmosphere in Fairfield county strongly prejudicial to the defendant. These facts were not disputed. In fact, the state admitted that there has been strong sentiment against the defendant, and the citizens who made the state's affidavits would only say that "in their judgment they thought" the defendant could get a fair trial in Fairfield county. It appears also that the Governor had reasons for thinking that the defendant would be unsafe in the Winnsboro jail, and so detained him in the penitentiary practically up to the time of trial. That the defendant could not get paid local counsel at Winnsboro to represent him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Francis
...cited the cases of State v. Jackson, 110 S.C. 273, 96 S.E. 416; State v. Kenny, 77 S.C. 236, 57 S.E. 859, 861, and State v. Davis, 138 S.C. 532, 137 S.E. 139. Jackson's Case, this court reversed the ruling of the circuit court, whereby a change of venue was refused. It was held that the gra......
-
State v. Bikle
...abuse of his discretion has been shown, nor has he been shown to have committed error of law in his ruling. In the case of State v. Davis, 138 S.C. 532, 137 S.E. 139, the showing made by the defendant for a change of venue so convincing that the state admitted that there was a strong sentim......
-
State v. Rasor
... ... continuing the case on account of the hostile sentiment ... existing at the time of the trial against appellants, two ... cases, decided by this court, are mainly relied upon. We are ... of the opinion that neither of these is applicable. In the ... first, State v. Davis, 138 S.C. 532, 137 S.E. 139, ... 140, this court held there was reversible error in refusing ... the motion of the defendant for a change of venue on the ... showing made that he could not obtain a fair and impartial ... trial in Fairfield county, where the alleged crime was ... committed ... ...
-
State v. Thomas
...unless it is made to appear that there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Goodwin, 127 S.C. 107, 120 S.E. 496; State v. Davis, 138 S.C. 532, 137 S.E. 139. The right of a prisoner to have a change of venue depends upon the conditions existing at the time of the trial. The record here ......