State v. Johnson, 12894.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 152 S.E. 825 |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 12894.,12894. |
| Parties | STATE. v. JOHNSON et al. |
STATE.
v.
JOHNSON et al.
No. 12894.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
April 15, 1930.
[152 S.E. 826]
The instruction complained of was to effect that crime may be proven by circumstantial evidence as well as by direct testimony, but facts and circumstances relied on to show guilt must be proven to show guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and must be consistent, and that every possible supposition by which facts and circumstances may be explained consistent with innocence of accused must be carefully examined.
The instruction complained of was to effect that if A and B set out on an unlawful enterprise, such as commission of felony, and, in their efforts to further their design and complete their design of committing felony, they take life without fault on part of deceased, then it is murder, or if one were going down highway and persons should approach with preconceived purpose of robbing him, even though they did not intend primarily to take one's life at the time they attempted to rob, if, during process of putting their unlawful purpose into practice, they took one's life, then it is murder.
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; M. M. Mann, Judge.
Paul Johnson and another were convicted of murder, and they appeal.
Affirmed.
Claude Taylor and Jennings Thompson, both of Spartanburg, for appellants.
I. C. Blackwood, Sol., L. G. Southard, and Sam R. Watt, all of Spartanburg, for the State.
COTHRAN, J.
The defendants were indicted in the court of general sessions of Spartanburg county charged with the murder of Earle Belue, near the city of Spartanburg, on December 4, 1928. The trial was had before his honor, Judge Mann, and a jury at Spartanburg on Thursday, April 25, 1929, and resulted in convictions of murder without recommendation of mercy. The defendants were accordingly sentenced to death and have appealed.
The exceptions assign error in the following particulars:
1. That his honor, the presiding Judge, refused the motion of the defendants made on April 17, 1929, for an order directing the sheriff to place the defendants in jail where they might be interviewed jointly and at the same time by their attorneys.
2. That his honor erred in permitting the sheriff to bring the defendants into the courtroom in shackles and in refusing to order them removed.
3. That his honor erred in setting the case on Thursday, April 25th, after their arraignment on Monday, the 22d, the defendants having announced upon their arraignment that they were not ready for trial.
4. That his honor erred in refusing the motion of the defendants for a continuance upon the ground of the absence of a material witness.
5. That his honor erred in not excluding the witness Green from the courtroom after his order upon motion of the defendants that the witnesses be segregated and excluded.
6. That his honor erred in his charge defining "malice."
7. That his honor erred in his charge in reference to circumstantial evidence.
8. That his honor erred in charging the jury that in the findings of fact the jury was "higher than the Supreme Court."
9. That his honor erred in charging in reference to the testimony of an accomplice.
10. That his honor erred in refusing the motion of the defendants for a new trial "upon the grounds stated in the record and upon the further ground that the State failed to prove the venue in this case."
11. "That his honor erred in charging the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Blackwell, 16562
...688 not essential. State v. Sowell, 85 S.C. 278, 67 S.E. 316; State v. Whaley, 113 S.C. 103, 101 S.E. 568; State v. Johnson, 156 S.C. 63, 152 S.E. 825; State v. Bagwell, 201 S.C. 387, 23 S.E.2d The complex plot of appellants and their accomplices and the respective parts which they played c......
-
State v. Rutledge, 17373
...136, 26 S.E. 234; State v. Sowell, 85 S.C. 278, 67 S.E. 316; State v. Whaley, 113 S.C. 103, 101 S.E. 568; State v. Johnson, 156 S.C. 63, 152 S.E. 825; State v. Fleming, 228 S.C. 129, 89 S.E.2d The next question is whether a defendant who receives with guilty knowledge in South Carolina prop......
-
State v. Hicks, 19332
...136, 26 S.E. 234; State v. Sowell, 85 S.C. 278, 67 S.E. 316; State v. Whaley, 113 S.C. 103, 101 S.E. 568; State v. Johnson, 156 S.C. 63, 152 S.E. 825; State v. Fleming, 228 S.C. 129, 89 S.E.2d Page 750 The contention that this witness' testimony was affected by the hope of a light sentence ......
-
State v. Givens, 20241
...State v. Sowell, 85 S.C. 278, 67 S.E. 316 (1910); State v. Whaley, 113 S.C. 103, 101 S.E. 568 (1919); State v. Johnson, 156 S.C. 63, 152 S.E. 825 (1930); State v. Fleming, 228 S.C. 129, 89 S.E.2d 104 (1955); State v. Hicks, 257 S.C. 279, 185 S.E.2d 746 (1971). Appellant has been granted per......