State v. Deas, 15486.
Decision Date | 11 January 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 15486.,15486. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE . v. DEAS et al. |
STATE .
v.
DEAS et al.
No. 15486.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jan. 11, 1943.
[23 S.E.2d 821]
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court, of Florence County; James E. Peurifoy, Special Judge.
Roy Deas and Aline Walker were convicted of manslaughter, and they appeal. Affirmed.
McEachin & Townsend, of Florence, for appellants.
J. Reuben Long, Solicitor, of Conway, and George W. Keels, of Florence, for respondent.
STUKES, Justice.
Appellants were tried in the Court of General Sessions for Florence County at the June, 1941, term upon an indictment for murder and were convicted of manslaughter. The homicide occurred at about four o'clock in the morning at a "juke joint" on the Darlington highway near the City of Florence in March of that year. No detailed statement of the facts is necessary for consideration of the exceptions, but they will be referred to as may be thought necessary in the discussion of the latter.
Able counsel for the appellants have in their brief conveniently grouped the allegations of error under three questions, the first of which complains of the admission in evidence over objection of testimony of the proprietor of the road-house concerning a conversation between him and the male appellant at the place, the locus of the crime, about a half-hour after its commission when this appellant returned to the scene and the witness threatened him with a shotgun and told him that he had already done enough damage there. In the light of retrospect it is difficult to see the relevancy of this conversation but a consideration of all of the evidence, particularly that given by this witness, makes impossible the conclusion that any prejudice resulted to the appellants from it. As has been many times said, the admission of evidence is largely within the discretion of the trial judge and erroneous exercise of it must be accompanied by probable prejudice to a party in order to entitle him to a new trial for admission or rejection of questioned evidence. State v. Gregory, 198 S. C. 98, 16 S.E.2d 532.
The second exception is included under this general head and it is contended by it that appellants were prejudiced by the admission of questions by the Solicitor of the appellant Deas on cross-examination as to whether he had shot a hole in the floor of the home of the other appellant on the night before the tragedy, which the witness denied, but the implication in the questions tended to rebut the contention of the witness that his first possession of the pistol was on the night of the killing and that he had then taken it from the home of his co-defendant, at her request...
To continue reading
Request your trial