State v. Hunter

• Decision Date: 11 February 1908
• Parties: STATE v. HUNTER.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

60 S.E. 240

79 S.C. 73

STATE v. HUNTER.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 11, 1908

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Laurens County; Ernest Gary, Judge.

Will Hunter was convicted of an assault and battery with intent to kill, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Ferguson & Featherstone and W. R. Richey, for appellant.

R. A Cooper, for the State.

GARY A. J.

The defendant was indicted for assault and battery upon Orange Elmore, with intent to kill. It appeared from the testimony that a crowd of negroes were playing cards in the woods, and that the defendants Roy Hunter, Willie Higgins and Orange Elmore were engaged in the game. The difficulty began between Willie Higgins and Mose Shand, who quarreled about 15 cents. After that numerous shots were fired in the crowd, and the testimony was conflicting as to whether Will Hunter fired the shot that struck Orange Elmore. Several of the state's witnesses testified that he did. His honor the presiding judge, after charging the general law relating to assault and battery with intent to kill, proceeded to instruct the jury as follows: "Another principle of law to which I desire to call your attention: Where two or more are present aiding in the commission of a felony, or acting in concert, it does not make any difference which one shot. If they were acting in concert, the hand of one is the hand of both, the pistol of one is the pistol of both. So two men can be convicted of shooting when only one shoots, if the other man is present, aiding, assisting, and abetting, and the man who is assisting need not have a pistol, yet he can be convicted of shooting. All who are present aiding and abetting are principals in the eyes of the law. So if you should conclude from the facts and testimony that this defendant here did not actually fire the shot, but that he was aiding some one else, a general conspiracy to shoot and violate the law, he would be equally guilty. As I say, the hand of one is the hand of both. The hand of one in that instance would be the hand of both." The jury rendered a verdict against the defendant for assault and battery, with intent to kill, and he was sentenced to work on the chain gang for four years.

The defendant appealed upon the following exceptions "First. The defendant respectfully submits that the above charge of the presiding judge was error in this case for the following reasons: (a) Because the defendant, and the defendant alone, was indicted for assault and battery upon the person of one Orange Elmore. (b) No other person, or persons, were jointly indicted with the said defendant, nor...