State v. Jackson, 17013

Decision Date07 June 1955
Docket NumberNo. 17013,17013
Citation87 S.E.2d 681,227 S.C. 271
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Henry JACKSON, Appellant.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

John M. Scott, J. D. Whisenhunt, Florence, for appellant.

Sol. J. Reuben Long, Conway, J. M. Long, Jr., Myrtle Beach, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Justice.

Appellant, Henry Jackson, was convicted and sentenced to death for the crime of murder at the June, 1954, Term of General Sessions Court for Florence County and appeals.

The testimony shows that on April 24, 1954, appellant lived with his mother near the town limits of Timmonsville, South Carolina, whether 'just in or out' the record isn't clear, in a three-room house constructed so that the rooms are in line, one behind the other, the front room being used by the mother as a bedroom, the next being used by appellant and a roomer, Cleveland Williams, as a bedroom, and the last as a kitchen.

On the night in question, appellant went to Florence, South Carolna, with a brother, he, the appellant, visited an eating place and drank some beer and whiskey. The hour being late and unable to locate his brother, he engaged a colored taxi driver to take him to his home in Timmonsville, agreeing to pay $3 fare 'when I get there.' Upon reaching the home, he went inside for the purpose of borrowing a dollar from his mother, but she declined to loan him any money stating that she 'did not have a dollar.' According to his testimony, when he was unable to get the money he did not report back to the cab driver but sat down on his bed and fell asleep. The taxi driver attempting to collect his fare knocked on both the front and rear doors but received no response. Upon hearing a bed squeak, he knocked at a window and was answered by the roomer, Williams, who told him that appellant was then asleep and that he would not attempt to wake him. The taxi driver then got in his car, drove to the business district of Timmonsville where he located a colored policeman by the name of Lucius Jenerette and told him of his difficulty. The policeman entered the car with the cab driver and returned to appellant's house where he knocked on both doors and windows with his blackjack in an attempt to contact the appellant, announcing that he was a policeman and wished to talk to him about the cab fare. While the deceased was knocking on the front door, appellant's mother who slept in the front room, according to the testimony of the appellant, his mother, and the roomer, Cleveland Williams, called out, 'Don't knock my door down' or words of similar import. The taxi driver, however, who was on the outside with the policeman, testified he did not hear such statement.

A portion of appellant's testimony appears as follows:

'Q. After you went to sleep, what was the next thing you heard? A. When I woke up, after I went to sleep on the bed. I was at the foot of the bed lying across the bed, and when I woke up, Cleveland was pressing against me with his foot in the bed, and he called to me and said: 'Somebody out there,' and I got up, and when I got up there was knocking on the front door, and I walked from my room to the middle door, and when I got to the middle door, that is the time my mother said: 'Whoever that is, don't try to tear my door down.' I reached up over my head and took the gun down. When I made about two steps, I butt into a chair near the foot of the bed, and I turned where I could go get between the two beds and get out.

'Q. Were the windows closed? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. Could you see anything at all? A. No, sir. Before I could get my right foot around the foot of the bed, a flashlight flashed in my face, and I couldn't see nothing.

'Q. What happened? A. That time I snatched back on the hammer and turned loose.

'Q. After this happened, what did you do? A. After it happened, he fell, and before I could get close enough to put my head down to hear what he was saying he done quit saying anything. His flashlight was on the porch about three feet off. I walked up between his legs and reached over and picked up the flashlight.

'Q. When you picked up the flashlight, did you get blood on your hand? A. When I picked up the flashlight, it was something or nother wet. I don't know whether it was blood or what. I took the flashlight and shone on him, and I looks, and it was the police. * * *'

The shooting took place in the pre-dawn hours of Sunday morning, April 24, 1954. The prosecution takes the view that the deceased having received a complaint from the taxi driver it was his duty to make proper investigation with a view to ascertaining whether or not he should obtain a warrant for appellant's arrest and was in the act of making such investigation when he knocked on the doors and window of appellant's home, at the same time saying, 'Open up, this is the police. I want to talk to the fellow about the cab fare.' That the front door, although described as 'locked' or 'latched,' opened easily and if opened by the deceased was done so through his efforts to arouse some of the occupants of the household by knocking thereon and appellant knowing him to be a policeman shot him down while on the porch without warning or just cause.

Under the view taken by the defense the appellant, when he was unable to borrow the money to pay the cab fare, sat down upon his bed and being in an intoxicated condition went to sleep almost immediately; that he was not aware that the cab driver had returned with a policeman who had been trying to arouse him but that he was awakened by Williams who told him there was 'somebody out there'; that the front door was locked but could be pushed open if enough force was used and that the 'somebody' was trying to enter the house through this door; that he got up and proceeded towards the front door when he heard his mother say, 'Whoever that is don't try to tear my door down'; that he took the gun from over the door between the two bedrooms and had proceeded approximately two steps into his mother's bedroom when he was blinded by a flashlight which was shone in his face, he fired immediately, and heard the body fall to the floor. Upon picking up the flashlight, which was still burning, and directing its beam upon the body, he learned for the first time that he had shot a policeman. They also take the position that had appellant known the identity of the deceased it would be of no consequence as he having forced the lock on the front door was inside the bedroom and having no arrest warrant was there illegally and, therefore, a trespasser and his position relative thereto was no different from that of any other person.

Appellant in defending his person from an unlawful arrest had the right to use so much force as was apparently necessary to accomplish his deliverance and no more. State v. Byrd, 72 S.C. 104, 51 S.E. 542. See also State v. Petit, 144 S.C. 452, 142 S.E. 725. And in State v. Bradley, 126 S.C. 528, 120 S.E. 240, 242, this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • State v. Washington
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • August 8, 2018
    ...serious bodily harm is increased or it is reasonably apparent that such danger would be increased. State v. Jackson (H. Jackson) , 227 S.C. 271, 279, 87 S.E.2d 681, 685 (1955). "The law says if one can give back or step aside, or retreat without increasing his danger, and thus avoid taking ......
  • Sturdivant v. Dale
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • May 31, 2016
    ...119 (1992). State v. DeBerry, 250 S. C. 314, 320, 157 S. E. 2d 637, 640 (1967), cert. denied, 391 U. S. 953 (1968); State v. Jackson, 227 S. C. 271, 87 S. E. 2d 681 (1955); State v. Bethune, 112 S. C. 100, 104, 99 S. E. 753, 754 (1919); Hodge v. Piedmont & N. R. Co., 109 S. C. 62, 95 S. E. ......
  • The State v. Dickey
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 18, 2011
    ...the right to act on appearances as the instruction essentially “tracked” the language of this Court's opinion in State v. Jackson, 227 S.C. 271, 278, 87 S.E.2d 681, 684 (1955).9 Notably, Dickey cited Jackson in support of his two requests. Given the judge's instruction covered the substance......
  • State v. Starnes
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 8, 2000
    ...each case. In Fuller, the defendant requested a charge that he had the right to act on appearances. Quoting State v. Jackson, 227 S.C. 271, 278-279, 87 S.E.2d 681, 684-685 (1955), the Court set forth an appropriate charge on right to act on appearances: A defendant must show that he believe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT