State v. Gardner, No. 16479

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: OXNER; TAYLOR, J., and L. D. LIDE; STUKES; FISHBURNE
• Citation: 64 S.E.2d 130,219 S.C. 97
• Parties: STATE v. GARDNER.
• Docket Number: No. 16479
• Decision Date: 19 March 1951

Page 130

64 S.E.2d 130 219 S.C. 97 STATE
v.
GARDNER. No. 16479. Supreme Court of South Carolina. March 19, 1951.

Page 132

[219 S.C. 99] Francis G. Holliday, Charles W. McTeer, Chester, for appellant.

[219 S.C. 100] Solicitor W. G. Finley, York, for respondent.

OXNER, Justice.

Appellant killed his wife about nine o'clock on Monday morning, March 6, 1950. He was indicted and arraigned during the March, 1950 term of Court of General Sessions for Chester County and two members of the Chester Bar were appointed to represent him. On motion of these attorneys, the Court ordered that appellant be examined by the staff of the South Carolina State Hospital. The authorities of that institution declared him sane. At the June, 1950, term of Court he was tried and found guilty of murder and sentenced to death by electrocution. The principal questions for determination on this appeal are whether the Court below erred in holding that there was no evidence of manslaughter and in failing to submit to the jury the defense of insanity. A determination of these questions necessitates a review of the testimony.

[219 S.C. 101] Appellant is twenty-five years of age and a man of limited intelligence and education. He and the deceased were married on October 10, 1948 and had one child. Their married life seems not to have been a happy one. Appellant says that she 'didn't keep house', 'wouldn't stay at home', and that her constant interference with his work made it impossible for him to keep a job. He first worked at a cotton mill near Chester and lived in the home of his wife's parents. During the latter part of 1948 he left the mill and secured a job at a filling station. He and his wife then moved to the home of his mother. Shortly thereafter his father-in-law had him arrested for 'beating a board bill'. He remained in jail for several days and the charge was withdrawn. After a short interim of unemployment, he worked for three or four months at another filling station near Chester operated by a Mr. Hogan, who testified: 'I just had to let him go. His wife give a lot of trouble. Had to run her away. He was kind of a nervous fellow, and she got him tore up and he couldn't work on a car and so I had to let the boy go. He just didn't have the mind to run his job. That is all. He couldn't do it.' While working for Mr. Hogan, appellant

Page 133

states that he was 'beaten' by his father-in-law.

Appellant next worked at a colored theater for several months when he says he was again discharged on account of the conduct of his wife. He claims that he was then unable to secure a job anywhere around Chester and during December, 1949, went to Statesville, North Carolina, and secured employment in a furniture factory. After working several days, he returned to Chester to get his wife and baby but was immediately arrested on a warrant for vagrancy issued at the instance of his mother-in-law. A week or two later another warrant was issued for non-support. After remaining in jail for several weeks, he was released on bond. This charge of non-support was pending when the Court of General Sessions convened on the morning of the homicide and the deceased had been instructed to come to the Court House for the purpose of going before the Grand Jury.

[219 S.C. 102] At the time of the homicide, appellant was living alone in a rooming house at Chester and his wife and baby were staying at the home of her parents at the Eureka Mill village. Appellant testified that he left his room about seven o'clock on the morning of the homicide and went to the Eureka Mill, where his father-in-law worked, for the purpose of inducing him to withdraw the non-support charge so that he (appellant) could leave Chester and secure employment; that he took with him a butcher knife because his father-in-law had threatened to kill him; that being unable to find his father-in-law at the mill, he went to the house where he found his wife, her two young sisters, six and twelve years of age, and his baby; that he tried to get his wife to drop the non-support charge, but she refused to do so and asked her twelve year old sister to go to the home of a neighbor and call a taxi to take her to the court house. While the sister was away, appellant says that his wife stated that she and her father were going to put him in the penitentiary; that they 'got into an argument'; that she 'jumped on me' and 'me and her got into it', but that he did not remember anything that occurred thereafter.

The twelve year old sister of the deceased testified that appellant came to the house about eight o'clock and tried to get his wife to go with him to the court house, stating that it would be unnecessary to get there until ten or eleven o'clock, but the deceased insisted that she was to be there at nine and asked her to go to a neighbor's house and call a taxi; that when she left, appellant and his wife did not seem to be mad and were 'calling each other honey'; that after telephoning for a taxi, she returned and found her sister lying on the floor and, at the suggestion of appellant, called the officers. Two officers arrived within a few minutes. Immediately after they entered the house, appellant stated to them that he had just killed his wife with a butcher knife and was 'ready to go and ready to be electrocuted'. His wife was lying on the kitchen floor and died in a few minutes. The [219 S.C. 103] handle of a butcher knife was found under a cabinet in the kitchen. One of these officers testified that when they arrived at the house, appellant was nervous and seemed not to be normal; that his mind 'didn't act clear'; and that: 'He just looked like a madman. He had a frown on his face. When we put him in the car, he throwed his head back on the seat and closed his eyes.' This officer declined, however, to say that appellant was insane and testified that several hours later he appeared to be perfectly normal.

Shortly after noon on the day of the homicide, appellant signed a confession at the jail in which he stated that he went to the house for the purpose of killing his father-in-law but found he was not at home; that he and his wife got into an argument and he stabbed her; and that he had previously determined that if his wife did not withdraw the non-support warrant, he was going to kill her.

An examination of the body disclosed a brutal killing. There was a deep wound in the left side which cut the the kidney and large blood vessels. The undertaker removed the blade of a butcher knife from this wound. There was also a deep wound

Page 134

in the upper abdomen below the breast bone and a deep wound in the left side of the chest. These two wounds appeared to have been made by an instrument about the size of scissor blades. There were several bruises and scratches 'on the front of the throat'. On the day after the homicide, one of the officers discovered a pair of bloodstained scissors on a cabinet in the kitchen where the deceased was found. The points seemed to have been freshly broken.

One of the physicians from the State Hospital testified that their examination and observation of appellant disclosed that he was 'an emotionally tense' person, had the 'intelligence of a borderline individual' and a 'mental age--if you graded him--of approximately ten to eleven years', but it was the unanimous opinion of the three examining physicians that appellant 'was not insane' and 'knew right from wrong'.

[219 S.C. 104] We shall first determine whether the Court below erred in failing to submit to the jury the offense of manslaughter. The rule is well established in this jurisdiction that on a trial for murder growing out of the use of a deadly weapon, it is unnecessary to charge the law relating to manslaughter where the testimony fails to suggest any theory upon which a verdict of manslaughter could rest. State v. Edwards, 194 S.C. 410, 10 S.E.2d 587; State v. Bealin, 201 S.C. 490, 23 S.E.2d 746; State v. Takis, 204 S.C. 140, 28 S.E.2d 679; State v. Martin, 216 S.C. 129, 57 S.E.2d 55. It is equally well settled that to warrant the Court in eliminating the offense of manslaughter, it should very clearly appear that there is no evidence whatsoever tending to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. State v. Norton, 28 S.C. 572, 6 S.E. 820. Also, see State v. Hughes, 107 S.C. 429. 93 S.E. 5.

Voluntary manslaughter is usually defined as the unlawful killing of a human being in sudden heat of passion upon a sufficient legal provocation. In determining whether the act which caused death was impelled by heat of passion or by malice, all the surrounding circumstances and conditions are to be...