State v. Glover

• Decision Date: 06 July 1912
• Citation: 75 S.E. 218,91 S.C. 562
• Parties: STATE v. GLOVER.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

75 S.E. 218

91 S.C. 562

STATE v. GLOVER.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 6, 1912

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Dorchester County; J W. De Vore, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Clinton Glover was convicted of assault with intent to ravish, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The following are the exceptions:

"(1) Because his honor, the circuit judge, erred in overruling defendant's objection to the question: 'Q. Describe the tracks and what the blood hounds did?' The objection was as follows: It seems that before any testimony as to the tracks and the blood hounds can come out that it must be shown when the measure of the tracks was taken and where they were. We object to the testimony on that ground.

"(2) The Circuit Court erred in overruling defendant's objection to the testimony of the witness Shep Hutto as to tracks and the drawing of tracks after the solicitor had withdrawn the drawing from the record (a) and in refusing to strike out said testimony. (b) The circuit court further erred in refusing defendant's motion to restore the whole testimony as to the tracks and drawing subject to defendant's objection as a whole.

"(3) The circuit court erred in overruling the following objection to the testimony of the witness U.S. Way. We object to the witness testifying on the ground that he says that he does not know what it means to swear in court.

"(4) Circuit court erred in overruling defendant's objection to the following questions: 'Q. You live on one side of the school grounds and she lives on this side?' Objected to on the ground the same as leading. The circuit court erred in overruling defendant's objection to the following question and answer thereto: 'Q. You have got a watercloset back there where you go out? A. Yes, sir. Jacob Moorer, Esq.: We do not think that ought to go in, your honor. How is that relevant to this case?' We object to the testimony on the ground that it is not in line with the crime charged. This is not the character of offense which is before the court, and, where testimony of one's previous conduct is attempted to be shown, it must be in line with previous acts of the same kind. Going in a closet is not in line with the kind of crime charged here.

"(5) The court erred in overruling the following objections: 'We object to the testimony about the tracks, your honor has ruled that out? The Court: I ruled just the other way.'

"(6) The circuit court erred in overruling the following motion: 'The motion, your honor, is to direct a verdict of not guilty on the ground that the defendant has not been identified as the party who committed the crime charged, and that there is no evidence to connect him, or to show whose tracks the dogs trailed from this house. The evidence is insufficient to sustain any verdict against him whatever.

"(7) The circuit court erred in permitting solicitor to draw to the attention of the jury the fact that there was no testimony introduced by the defense.

"(8) The circuit court erred in charging the jury as follows: 'Now a reasonable doubt, as I have stated time and again in this courtroom, don't mean some fanciful or imaginary doubt, like a person might doubt whether the sun would rise to-morrow morning and not be able to give any reason for it--it does not mean that kind of a doubt, it means a good, strong, substantial doubt.' This definition of a reasonable doubt misled the jury and fixed the limits for finding a reasonable doubt beyond reason."

Moorer & Summers, of St. George, for appellant. Solicitor Hildebrand, of Orangeburg, for the State.

GARY C.J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court imposing the sentence of death upon the defendant, who was convicted of assault with intent to ravish. The appellant's exceptions will be reported and considered in their regular order.

First second, third, fourth, and fifth exceptions: In the first place, the appellant has failed to show that there was error; and in the second place, even...