State v. Jamison, No. 16615
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | TAYLOR; BAKER |
| Citation | 70 S.E.2d 342,221 S.C. 312 |
| Parties | STATE v. JAMISON. |
| Docket Number | No. 16615 |
| Decision Date | 07 April 1952 |
Page 342
v.
JAMISON.
Page 343
[221 S.C. 314] Cassandra E. Maxwell, Orangeburg, Harold R. Boulware, Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Columbia, for appellant.
[221 S.C. 315] Julian S. Wolfe, Sol., Hydrick & Hydrick, Orangeburg, for respondent.
[221 S.C. 316] TAYLOR, Justice.
Appellant was convicted of the charge of murder, with the jury recommending mercy, at the May, 1952, term of the Court of General Sessions for Orangeburg County. Before sentence was passed, appellant moved for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence did not justify the verdict of the jury, but on the other hand proved the killing accidental. This motion was refused and the appellant was sentenced to serve life imprisonment in the State Penitentiary.
This case was tried on the theory, as stated in the motion for a new trial, that the killing was accidental. However, the position is taken in the appeal now before this Court that such killing was justified in that appellant was acting in defense of his home. To dispose of this question it is necessary to refer to the testimony. Appellant stated that on the night in question, March 18th, he, William Berry (the deceased), his brother, Andrew Berry, Annie Jamison, mother of the appellant, and Zilla Mae McCray, went to a barbecue near the town of Bowman, South Carolina, where they spent several hours eating barbecue and drinking whiskey. After leaving, they proceeded to another place where the party was continued. Leaving there, they drove to the rear of appellant's home, arriving at approximately 5 A.M. The testimony of various witnesses as to what took place thereafter[221 S.C. 317] cannot be reconciled. However, appellant himself states that upon arriving at his home his mother inquired of the driver of the car, William Berry, how much she owed him and he stated, "there is more than one way to pay, pay with more than money," that she and the deceased proceeded into the house, he remaining in the car approximately twenty minutes before entering, and stated, "I saw him standing over my mother. Her pocketbook was open. Her pants off. I asked him what he meant standing over my mother like that. He struck me, I fell. I ran into the room and got the gun and two shells. When I went to go out the gun went off. I did not know that I had hit him. I went to the back; put another shell in it. Andrew say, 'What are you going to do with the gun'. I said nothing. We started tusseling over the gun. A shot went into the ground." Later in his testimony, he stated, "I got the gun he ran out and ran by me. I got almost to the bottom of the step and I stumbled and fell and the gun went off. I did not know that I had hit him. I went to the back. That is when Andrew asked about the gun." Later on he testified that he saw the deceased lying on the ground and imagined he was dead and went across the highway to Frances Folk's house to tell them that he believed he had shot a man and stated, "I ain't going to let nobody go in my house, not going to let nobody run over us." Still later he testified that he went around to the back of the house because "I wanted to ask his brother why he had the right to go there and stand over people. I did not know that he had got shot. I thought he had run around to the rear of the house." He further stated that he had not killed the deceased because he had taken money from his mother's pocketbook and that the deceased had not harmed him in any way, that he at that time did not know that William was shot and did not intend to shoot him. On cross-examination he was asked the question "Didn't you ask this man out of your yard?" to which he stated, "No, sir, I did not." Upon [221 S.C. 318] being further queried-
Page 344
about his stating that the deceased struck him, the following appears in the record:"Q. Did you accuse him of taking some money from your mother; you did not think that? A. No, sir.
"Q. When you went toward him what did you do? A. He ran out and knocked me down.
"Q. What did he hit you with? A. His hand.
"Q. His fist? A. Yes, sir.
"Q. Where did he hit you? A. I don't know exactly.
"Q. Give the jury some idea. A. He came to me.
"Q. He hit you hard enough to knock you down and you were thoroughly sober. A. I was still drinking.
"Q. You recall where he hit you? A. No, sir.
* * *
* * *
"Q. Did he hurt you? A. Could not when I was drinking.
"Q. How do you know that he hit you? A. Because he had to come by me to get out of the door.
"Q. He brushed by you? A. Yes, sir. Don't take much to knock a man down when he is drinking."
Other witnesses testified to the effect that appellant followed his mother and the deceased into the house almost immediately, that the deceased had left the house by way of the front door and was seventy feet from the steps when shot at close range with a shot gun, so close in fact that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Worthy, No. 17865
...may be so waived in a capital case is not consonant with the now settled rule in favorem vitae, and that its approval in State v. Jamison, 221 S.C. 312, 70 S.E.2d 342, is not important here because in Jamison the jury did recommend mercy and the death penalty was therefore not involved in t......
-
State v. Moorer, No. 18016
...126 S.C. 499, 120 S.E. 359; State v. Walker, 138 S.C. 293, 136 S.E. 215; State v. Epes, 209 S.C. 246, 39 S.E.2d 769.' State v. Jamison, 221 S.C. 312, 70 S.E.2d The trial Judge's denial of Appellant's motions was clearly a proper exercise of his judicial discretion and should not be disturbe......
-
State v. Gregg, No. 17213
...S.C. 224, 67 S.E.2d 82; State v. Washington, 220 S.C. 442, 68 S.E.2d 400; State v. Harvey, 220 S.C. 506, 68 S.E.2d 409; State v. Jamison, 221 S.C. 312, 70 S.E.2d 342; State v. Thomas, 222 S.C. 484, 73 S.E.2d 722; State v. Goodson, 225 S.C. 418, 82 S.E.2d 804; and State v. Littlejohn, 228 S.......
-
State v. Barksdale, No. 1967
...in the charge when he failed to request an instruction which would have dealt with the proposition now asserted. State v. Jamison, 221 S.C. 312, 321, 70 S.E.2d 342, 345 (1952). In any event, we do not discern the infirmity in the charge claimed by this Accordingly, the order of the trial co......
-
State v. Worthy, No. 17865
...may be so waived in a capital case is not consonant with the now settled rule in favorem vitae, and that its approval in State v. Jamison, 221 S.C. 312, 70 S.E.2d 342, is not important here because in Jamison the jury did recommend mercy and the death penalty was therefore not involved in t......
-
State v. Moorer, No. 18016
...126 S.C. 499, 120 S.E. 359; State v. Walker, 138 S.C. 293, 136 S.E. 215; State v. Epes, 209 S.C. 246, 39 S.E.2d 769.' State v. Jamison, 221 S.C. 312, 70 S.E.2d The trial Judge's denial of Appellant's motions was clearly a proper exercise of his judicial discretion and should not be disturbe......
-
State v. Gregg, No. 17213
...S.C. 224, 67 S.E.2d 82; State v. Washington, 220 S.C. 442, 68 S.E.2d 400; State v. Harvey, 220 S.C. 506, 68 S.E.2d 409; State v. Jamison, 221 S.C. 312, 70 S.E.2d 342; State v. Thomas, 222 S.C. 484, 73 S.E.2d 722; State v. Goodson, 225 S.C. 418, 82 S.E.2d 804; and State v. Littlejohn, 228 S.......
-
State v. Barksdale, No. 1967
...in the charge when he failed to request an instruction which would have dealt with the proposition now asserted. State v. Jamison, 221 S.C. 312, 321, 70 S.E.2d 342, 345 (1952). In any event, we do not discern the infirmity in the charge claimed by this Accordingly, the order of the trial co......