State v. Jefcoat

• Decision Date: 22 February 1884
• Citation: 20 S.C. 383
• Parties: STATE v. JEFCOAT.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

20 S.C. 383

STATE

v.JEFCOAT.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 22d, 1884.

1. Mere clerical errors, or mere matters of form, in an indictment, may be amended at any time before plea pleaded, with the consent of the grand jury.

2. There is no necessity for the presence of the prisoner at the hearing of a motion made by his counsel for a new trial, or in arrest of judgment, unless he claims the constitutional right of being heard in person.

3. A prisoner before being sentenced on conviction of murder was not asked “if he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon him.” Held, that this was error, but that the omission affected the sentence only, and did not entitle the prisoner to a new trial. State v.Trezevant, 20 S.C. 363, affirmed.

Before WALLACE, J., Orangeburg, May, 1883.

The opinion fully states the case.

Mr. Malcolm I. Browning, for appellant.

An indictment could not be amended at common law. 1 Arch. Cr. L. 313; 4 Burr. 2529; Bac. Abr. title Indict. G. II., title Amend. C. The statute of jeofails did not apply to pleas of the Crown. 1 Chit. Crim. L. 295; 2 Mason 145; 12 Mod. 229; 6 Mod. 281; 1 Bish. Cr. Pro. 97, 98, 707, 710, 711. While amendments in the caption have been permitted, in our State amendments of the body of an indictment is unprecedented. 1 Brev. 169;2 McCord 301. Difference between body and caption. 1 Arch. Cr. L. 240. As to the absence of the accused, at a stage of the trial, see 1 Arch. 330, note 1; Rules Circuit Court, No. XXXV.; 1 Bish. Cr. Pro. 265, 277, note 4. As to the omission of the presiding judge to demand of prisoner whether he had aught to say why sentence of death should not be pronounced upon him-this is absolutely and indispensably necessary, and it must appear on the record, to make the judgment lawful. 1 Arch. Cr. L., p. 580; 1 Chit. Crim. L., p. 700; 1 Bish. Cr. Pro. 1118, note 3; 4 Bl. Com. 370, 375; 2 Salk. 635; 3 Salk. 358; 3 Mod. 265. The appeal presents a series of violations of the constitutional safeguards of liberty and life. Cons., Art. I, Sec. 14. Unless this court intervenes, a man-a very humble man-it is most respectfully submitted, will be deprived of his life, otherwise than by the law of the land.

Mr. Solicitor Jervey, contra.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

MR. JUSTICE MCIVER.

In this case a bill of indictment charging the appellant with the offense of murder, was preferred to and presented by the grand jury as a true bill. When the arraignment of the prisoner was in progress, and before the defendant had pleaded to the indictment, the solicitor, discovering a clerical error in the indictment, asked the counsel for the prisoner if he would consent to an amendment, which being refused, the solicitor made the amendment by striking out a word improperly inserted, and without entering a nolle prosequi upon the indictment, recommitted the same indictment, with said word erased, to the same grand jury who returned it with an indorsement, “True Bill, W. W. Wannamaker, foreman,” their first finding having been erased. The error in the indictment, as first found, consisted in the insertion of the word “January” after the words “in the year of” in that portion of the indictment which specified the time when the offense charged was alleged to have been committed, so as to make it read “on the sixteenth day of January in the year of January, our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three,” and the amendment consisted in the erasure of the word “January” after the words “in the year of.”

The trial having resulted in a conviction of the defendant, he, by his counsel, made a motion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. The Circuit judge refused the motion for a new trial, but held the motion in arrest of judgment under advisement. Subsequently, the motion in arrest of judgment was called up, and the Circuit judge, “after hearing some further discussion by defendant's attorney, overruled the motion; during which discussion and ruling the accused was not present in court.” When the prisoner was called up for sentence, the Circuit Judge, “without demanding of him if he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon him,” proceeded to render judgment, in the usual form, that the prisoner “be hanged by the neck until the body be dead,” &c.

The defendant appeals upon the following grounds: First. “Because his Honor erred in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the indictment was amended by the solicitor and recommitted to the grand jury, ‘ ‘ nolle prosequi’ not having been entered thereon. Second. Because the accused was not in court when the motion in arrest of judgment was ruled upon and decided. Third. Because his Honor, the presiding judge, did not ask the accused if he had anything more to say why sentence of death should not be pronounced upon him, before such sentence was passed.”

First, as to the effect of the amendment. The authorities leave no doubt of the proposition that mere clerical errors, or mere matters of form, in an indictment may be amended at any time, before plea pleaded, with the consent of the grand jury. In 1 Chit. Crim. L. 297, it is said: “It is the common practice for the grand jury to consent, at the time they are sworn, that the court shall amend matters of form altering no matter of substance, and mere informalities may, therefore, be amended by the court before the commencement of the trial.” In Stark. Cr. Pl. 287, it is said: “It is the common practice at present to amend indictments in matters of form, whilst the grand jury are before the court; for which purpose they formally give their consent that the court shall amend matters of form altering no matter of substance.” To same effect see 1 Bish. Cr. Pro. (first edit.), § 391; 2 Hawk. P. C., c. 25, § 98; and in Mill. Comp. 147, ...