State v. Griffin

• Decision Date: 25 June 1906
• Parties: STATE v. GRIFFIN.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

54 S.E. 603

74 S.C. 412

STATE v. GRIFFIN.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 25, 1906

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Fairfield County Prince, Judge.

Sol Griffin was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Affirmed.

Buchanan & Hanahan, for appellant. J. K. Henry, for the State.

GARY A. J.

The facts are thus stated in the record: "This case was tried at the September term, 1905, for Fairfield county; Hon George E. Prince presiding. Indictment for murder in usual form. Verdict manslaughter. The defendant went to Red Hill Church. He began cursing on the church grounds. Toliver was marshal appointed by the church trustees to keep order. Toliver spoke to defendant about it and advanced towards defendant with a stick in his hand. The defendant began firing his pistol. The outcry was made that Toliver was killed. The crowd pursued. Defendant presented pistol. Some of the crowd got sticks and rocks and pursued, when the deceased without arms came near in pursuit and said: 'We will take you back to give an account for what you have done.' Defendant took aim and fired, killing deceased Tom Moore. The crowd began shooting, throwing rocks and sticks. One secured a gun and shot the defendant down and captured him, hitting him with the butt of his gun. Toliver was not killed, but was shot at by the defendant and reported killed in the pursuing crowd. He was at the trial and testified. The testimony by the state was that Moore did not shoot. The defendant testified that Moore was shooting, and it is admitted that Moore was killed about one-third of a mile from the church ground while in pursuing crowd."

The defendant appealed upon five exceptions, but they raise in different form the question assigned as error in the fifth exception, which is as follows: ""That his honor erred in charging the jury in response to a question from the foreman of the jury: Foreman of the jury: 'Suppose that the parties seeking to make arrest have certain information that they believe which proves to be untrue?' The Court 'I have charged you that that justifies them in making the arrest, if it does turn out afterwards to be untrue, provided the information was certain and definite and such would cause a man of ordinary prudence and reason to have accepted them as true.' The error being in making the right to arrest depend upon the question of the information possessed by the parties seeking to make the arrest, and not upon the question of whether the defendant had committed a felony." Section 1 of the Criminal Code of 1902, is as follows: "Upon view...