State v. Hill
| Decision Date | 30 July 1924 |
| Docket Number | 11558. |
| Parties | STATE v. HILL. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Aiken County; C. C Featherstone, Judge.
John Hill was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Williams Croft & Busbee, of Aiken, for appellant.
R. L Gunter, Sol., of Aiken, for the State.
Appeal from conviction of and sentence for manslaughter upon an indictment charging the defendant, John Hill, with the murder of his brother, Tom Hill, in Aiken county on or about September 10, 1923. The exceptions raise the following questions:
(1) Did the circuit judge err in excluding evidence of specific instances of violence on the part of the deceased towards members of the defendant's family and neighbors, and especially towards the father of the defendant?
(2) Did the circuit judge err in charging the jury that, in order to establish his plea of self-defense, the defendant must show "that there must have been (was) no other reasonable means of escape"?
(3) Did the circuit judge err in charging the jury that evidence of the good reputation of the defendant was limited to the question whether or not the defendant committed a crime?
(4) Did the circuit judge err in charging the jury that evidence of the bad reputation of the deceased was limited to the question whether or not, in view of the fact, the defendant would have been justified in construing the acts of the deceased more harshly or acting more quickly?
The First Question.--The rule is that evidence of other specific instances of violence on the part of the deceased are not admissible, unless they were directed against the defendant, or, if directed towards others, were so closely connected in point of time or occasion with the homicide as reasonably to indicate the state of the mind of the deceased at the time of the homicide, or to produce reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm. A similar question in reference to the conduct of the defendant has recently been considered by this court in the case of State v. Gregory, 120 S.E. 499, in which it is declared that the conduct, actions, and general demeanor of the accused immediately before the killing is admissible to show that he was in a vicious humor, as bearing upon the great issue in the case, his frame of mind at the time of the homicide. State v. Miller, 73 S.C. 280, 53 S.E. 426, 114 Am. St. Rep. 82; State v. Rowell, 75 S.C. 494, 56 S.E. 23; 4 Elliott, Ev. § 3029. The same rule should apply on behalf of the accused in establishing the temper of the deceased at the time of the fatal encounter. State v. Dean, 72 S.C. 74, 51 S.E. 524; State v. Andrews, 73 S.C. 257, 53 S.E. 423; State v. Springfield, 86 S.C. 323, 68 S.E. 563.
The appellant does not point out, either in his exceptions or argument, the particular testimony which was excluded, which alone would be sufficient to dismiss the contention of error. A careful examination of the testimony convinces us that the proposed evidence had no connection, either in point of time or effect, with the homicide, and under the rule stated was properly excluded.
The Second Question.--The circuit judge charged the jury:
The criticism of the charge is that there might have been a reasonable means of escape as a matter of fact, but that this would not have deprived the defendant of his plea of self-defense unless it had so appeared to the defendant as a man of ordinary prudence and firmness. The objection is hypercritical, for the element of "reasonableness" necessarily implies that such characteristic would have been apparent to a man of ordinary prudence and firmness; if it was not so apparent, it could not be considered as a reasonable means of escape. The charge is sustained by State v. Andrews, 73 S.C. 257, 53 S.E. 423, State v. Chastain, 85 S.C. 64, 67...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Amburgey
...with the homicide as reasonably to indicate the state of mind of the deceased at the time of the homicide, or to probodily harm. State v. Hill, 129 S.C. 166, duce apprehension of great 123 S.E. 817, and cases cited therein. The appellant, however, is in no position to complain. As soon as t......
-
State v. Lyles
... ... it should have.' State v. Barth, 25 S.C. 175, 60 ... Am.Rep. 496. The good reputation of the accused, if proved, ... may be taken into consideration by the jury in determining ... whether or not he committed the crime charged. State v ... Hill, 129 S.C. 166, 123 S.E. 817. There was no request ... to charge to this effect and at the conclusion of the charge ... the Court's attention was not called to the omission now ... complained of. Under these circumstances such omission cannot ... now be assigned as error. It is true that the ... ...
-
State v. Jones
...not admissible. Under the application of the rule thus stated, some of the questions asked were held to be improper. In State v. Hill, 129 S.C. 166, 123 S.E. 817, it said: "The rule is that evidence of other specific instances of violence on the part of the deceased are not admissible, unle......
-
State v. Harris, 21339
...correctly informed to apply the law to the facts as they found them to exist. Finally, we would note that this court in State v. Hill, 129 S.C. 166, 123 S.E. 817 (1924) limited use of the law of appearances to a situation where self-defense would be Appellant next contends that the trial ju......