State v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 13 December 1923
• Docket Number: 11376.
• Citation: 120 S.E. 490,127 S.C. 116
• Parties: STATE v. EDWARDS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

120 S.E. 490

127 S.C. 116

STATE v. EDWARDS.

No. 11376.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 13, 1923

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Greenville County Frank B. Gary, Judge.

Will Edwards was convicted of highway robbery, and he appeals. Case remanded for the sole purpose of a resentence.

Defendant's exceptions were as follows:

(1) That his honor erred in refusing to permit the defendant to offer testimony of J. V. Crosskeys and others as to the reputation of the witness Joshua Moore for honesty, truth and veracity; it being respectfully submitted that the proof showed that Mrs. Jones, the prosecutrix, was a white lady and had identified the defendant as being the one who robbed her, and, as the defendant's defense was an alibi, and the principal evidence upon which he relied was that of a colored man, Joshua Moore, and his family, it was proper for the defendant to prove that Joshua Moore, a colored man, was a witness of honorable reputation, thereby making the defense and the prosecution equal in the eyes of the law before the jury; it being further submitted, that, as the witnesses were negroes, who are not generally known in the community to jurors who do not reside near them, it was proper to show to the jury that the witness, Joshua Moore was an honorable, upright, and truthful colored man, and in refusing to permit this testimony the court committed error of law.

(2) That his honor erred in refusing to charge defendant's special request to charge as follows: "While motive is not a necessary element on the part of the state, yet absence of motive may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the defendant's guilt"--it being respectfully submitted that said request was a sound proposition of law, and that the defendant was entitled to have the same charged as requested, upon the ground that the absence of proof, or lack of proof, or insufficiency of proof, is always a question which the jury has a right to consider on the question of reasonable doubt.

(3) That the jury failed to give the defendant the benefit of the reasonable doubt arising out of the testimony, as instructed by the court, in that, the jury having asked that the defendant's face be washed, showed that there was a reasonable doubt in their minds, and, as the washing of defendant's face failed to show there was any coloring or other matter on his skin, the jury would have given him the benefit of the doubt which must have been in their minds when they made this request.

(4) That the sentence of 15 years was more than the law provides for conviction of one guilty of robbery.

Bonham & Price and T. E. La Grone, all of Greenville, for appellant.

D. W. Smoak, Sol., of Greenville, for the State.

GARY C.J.

The following statement appears in the record:

"The defendant, Will Edwards, a colored exsoldier, was indicted at the January, 1922, term of the court of general sessions, on a charge of highway robbery; it being alleged that he, on the night of December 4, 1921, between 6 and 7 o'clock had robbed Mrs. T. E. Jones, a white lady residing on the corner of Butler avenue and Buncombe street, one of the most prominent thoroughfares in the city of Greenville. The defendant was tried before Judge Frank B. Gary and a jury, on January 9 and 10, 1922. A most peculiar incident occurred during the trial. It developed in the testimony that Mrs. Jones had described the negro as being a brown skin negro. The defendant was a coal black negro, and the question of his color was

a sharp issue during the trial. After the jury had

...