State v. Evans
| Decision Date | 23 June 1919 |
| Docket Number | 10207. |
| Citation | 99 S.E. 751,112 S.C. 43 |
| Parties | STATE v. EVANS et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Lancaster County; J W. De Vore, Judge.
Walter Evans and others were convicted of murder, and they appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Williams & Williams & Stewart, of Lancaster, and Claude N. Sapp, of Columbia, for appellants.
J. K Henry, Sol., of Chester, John T. Green, of Lancaster, and Thomas F. McDow, of York, for the State.
The defendants were indicted for the murder of Sidney Bailey They were also indicted for the murder of Edgar Bailey. Before they were arraigned, their attorneys made a motion to join the indictments, on the ground that they arose out of one and the same difficulty, and that the deaths of Edgar Bailey and Sidney Bailey were the result of one and the same impulse. The motion was overruled, and this presents the first assignment of error. It is only necessary to cite the following cases to show that such motions are addressed to the discretion of the presiding judge: State v. Carroll, 30 S.C. 85, 8 S.E. 433, 14 Am. St. Rep. 883; State v. Wade, 95 S.C. 387, 79 S.E. 106; State v. Brown, 108 S.C. 490, 95 S.E. 61.
The second exception was as follows:
"Because his honor erred in standing aside, on motion of the state, juror James A. Cauthen, on the ground that he had made an affidavit at the habeas corpus proceedings in the case, testifying to the good reputation of two of the defendants for industry, peace, and quiet; whereas, said juror, on his voir dire, disclaimed any bias for or against the defendants or the prosecution, and stated that he could give both the state and the defendants a fair trial."
The ruling of his honor, the presiding judge, thus appears in the record:
The appellants' attorneys have failed to satisfy this court that his honor, the presiding judge, erroneously exercised his discretion.
The third assignment of error is as follows:
"Because his honor erred in admitting, over defendants' repeated objections, the testimony of witnesses W. J. Bailey, W. T. Addison, Amos Bird, and Vernon Sowell, as to the causes and details of a former...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Blakely, 5114.
...of the trial court after motion by one party. See State v. Hinson, 253 S.C. 607, 613, 172 S.E.2d 548, 551 (1970); State v. Evans, 112 S.C. 43, 45, 99 S.E. 751, 751 (1919). Federal courts have rejected the argument that the initial choice to withhold certain charges and then later proceed on......
- State v. Blakely
-
State v. Day
...which occurred twenty-three years prior to the incident in question. Brown, 321 S.C. at 187, 467 S.E.2d at 924; see also State v. Evans, 112 S.C. 43, 99 S.E. 751 (1919) (holding trial judge in a manslaughter trial did not abuse discretion in excluding record of indictment of deceased for bu......
-
Keifer v. State
... ... 196, in a ... trial for assault with intent to murder, it was held that it ... was proper to admit evidence of a quarrel two years before ... the assault, but that the details of the quarrel were ... improper. See, also, Rich v. State (1920), ... 124 Miss. 272, 86 So. 770; State v. Evans ... (1919), 112 S.C. 43, 99 S.E. 751; People v ... Thomson (1891), 92 Cal. 506, 28 P. 589 ... The ... apparent emphasis with which the attention of the jury was ... drawn to the details of the collateral assault and the ... punishment for it imposed presented a situation ... ...