State v. Jones

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtDANTZLER
Citation67 S.E. 160,86 S.C. 17
Decision Date03 March 1910
PartiesSTATE v. JONES.

67 S.E. 160
86 S.C. 17

STATE
v.
JONES.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 3, 1910.


[67 S.E. 160]

On Petition for Rehearing, May 9, 1910.

1. Homicide (§ 135*)—Mubder — Indictment —Sufficiency.

Under Cr. Code 1902, § 56, providing that every indictment charging the crime so plainly that the nature thereof may be easily understood shall be sufficient, etc., an indictment for murder, alleging in one count that accused administered, and caused to be administered, to decedent, a deadly poison called "strychnine, " on account of which decedent died, and alleging, in another count, that accused inflicted on and created in decedent mortal injuries and a mortal sickness, a further description whereof is to the jurors unknown, from which injuries decedent died, is sufficient.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. § 223; Dec. Dig. § 135.*]

2. Indictment and Information (§ 132*)— Joinder of Counts—Election.

Where the same offense is charged in different counts of the indictment, or where the several offenses charged in separate counts grow out of the same transaction, the court should not require the state to elect on which count accused shall be tried, but should require the jury to pass on the several counts separately; but, where the several offenses charged do not grow out of the same transaction, the proper practice is to require an election.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 438-447; Dec. Dig. § 132.*]

3. Homicide (§§ 166*) — Evidence — Admissibility—Motive.

On the trial of a husband for the murder of his wife, evidence of the misconduct of the wife towards other men was admissible, where there was testimony justifying the conclusion that accused was in the house at the time of the alleged conduct for the purpose of witnessing it.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. § 327; Dec. Dig. § 166.*]

4. Criminal Law (§ 696*)—Evidence—Rulings.

Where the judge cautioned a witness to state oniy what she saw, if anything, and not what any one told her, and the witness subsequently gave hearsay testimony, and there was no motion to strike it, the action of the judge in allowing the witness to testify from hearsay, and in failing to instruct the witness to refrain from making statements based on hearsay, was not erroneous.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1639; Dec. Dig. § 696.*]

5. Criminal Law (§ 696*)—Evidence—Rulings.

Where the court directed the jury to disregard certain testimony, unless its relevancy was subsequently shown to the court and admitted by it, the refusal to strike from the record such testimony was not erroneous.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1639; Dec. Dig. § 696.*]

6. Homicide (§ 146*)—Malice—Implied.

From continuous brutal conduct on the part of a husband accused of murdering his wife malice may be inferred.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 18, 265-271; Dec. Dig. § 140.*

7. Homicide (§ 5*) — Inciting to Suicide — Cause of Death.

Before one who incites to suicide can be, guilty of murder, a causal connection must exist between the incitement and the suicide, and the incitement must be an inducing cause of the crime, though not necessarily the sole cause, and where such connection is established the inciter is responsible for the act and is a murdefer as if he had prevailed on a third person to commit the homicide.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 7-10; Dec. Dig. § 5.*]

8. Criminal Law (§ 70S*)—Instructions-Arriving at Verdict.

Where the court properly charged on murder and manslaughter, and directed the jury to find one of the four verdicts of guilty of murder or guilty of murder with recommendation to mercy, or guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty, a charge that the jury should take, the record and find a verdict, and that when the jury reached a verdict, and they must arrive at a verdict, the foreman must write it on the indictment and sign his name as foreman, was not erroneous because stating that the jury must arrive at one of the four verdicts.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1800, 1801; Dec. Dig. § 768.*]

9. Criminal Law (§ 865*)—Trial—Coercion of Verdict.

Where the court in a homicide case kept the jury deliberating one night and the greater part of one day, and then charged them on the law and sent them back for further deliberation on being informed that the jury disagreed on the facts, and indicated to the jury the great necessity of reaching a verdict, and that mistrials ought not to occur because of the great expense involved, etc., the jury were not coerced into agreeing on a verdict.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2069; Dec. Dig. § 865.*]

10. Criminal Law (§ 760*)—Instructions-Weight of Evidence.

An instruction, containing an observation on another case, to the effect that under the testimony recited a third person had been convicted, etc., was not erroneous under Const, art. 5, § 26, providing that judges shall not charge as to matters of fact, for under the Constitution the court may, in declaring the law applicable to a case, base that law on hypothetical findings of fact.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1749; Dec. Dig. § 760.*]

11. Criminal Law (§ 956*) — New Trial — Grounds—Service of Affidavits.

A new trial on affidavits showing expressions of jurors hostile to accused, made before the trial, will not be granted, where the affidavits were not served on the jurors nor on counsel for the state.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2373; Dec. Dig. § 956.*]

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Union County; R. W. Memminger, Judge.

W. T. Jones was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

See, also, 63 S. E. 62.

The defendant, W. T. Jones, upon an indictment charging him with the murder of Mrs. Marion Jones, his wife, was tried at the spring, 1909, term of the court of general sessions for Union county, convicted of murder, with recommendation to the mercy of the court, and duly sentenced.

The defendant has appealed to this court upon the following grounds:

"(1) Exceptions in connection with the re-

[67 S.E. 161]

fusal to quash the indictment, and to compel the state to elect. Because his honor erred in not sustaining the motion to quash the indictment, and because, failing in this, he did not require the state to elect upon which count of the indictment the trial should proceed, upon the grounds stated in the argument of said motion, which were as follows, to wit:

"(a) Because the court erred in not quashing the indictment upon the grounds submitted on the motion therefor.

"(b) Because the state should have been required to elect upon which count of the indictment they would proceed.

"(c) Because it was error to admit the testimony of B. G. Gregory and Arthur English relative to Mrs. Jones' acts and conduct towards them as relevant and competent and was entirely illogical if the conversation between them was excluded as irrelevant and incompetent.

"(d) Because the illustration in regard to circumstantial evidence used by the judge in his second charge to the jury was in reality and substance a charge upon the facts.

"(e) Because the evidence as a whole was insufficient to bring about a conviction.

"(f) Because the affidavits submitted in regard to certain of the jurors who had been impaneled should have caused a setting aside of the verdict.

"(2) Exceptions as to the matters of evidence.

"(a) Because his honor erred in allowing the witness Ida E. Whitlock to testify as follows: T have seen on her body the marks of where he struck her.' And, further: T saw marks and bruises on her body that Mr. Jones had made'—when it clearly appears that the witness was not speaking from her own knowledge, but from information that she had received.

"(b) Because his honor erred in failing, when requested so to do, to instruct the witness Ida E. Whitlock to refrain from making statements based upon hearsay, this failure taking place especially where the said witness, in response to the question: 'Q. Harry was upstairs with them? A. I suppose he was in his own bedroom. His mother told me he was.'

"(c) Because his honor erred, after holding upon objection made that the testimony of the witness John Williams as to whisky and the taking of supper at the table of Jones was irrelevant and incompetent, in refusing, upon request therefor, to have the same stricken from the record, and in leaving it to the jury to determine whether or not its relevancy should appear, thus leaving it to the jury to determine a question of law as well as of fact.

"(d) Because his honor erred, after objection made, in allowing the witness B. G. Gregory to answer the question: 'Q. State whether or not, before that conversation with Jones, you had received a message by a negro boy' —to state that the negro from whom he had received the message was living with Mr. Jones and still there, and that his name was Mat Gist, thus leaving it to the jury to infer 'whether the relevancy of the question or answer had been shown or not; it being respectfully contended that, unless some connection between Jones and the negro was established, no action of the negro could bind the defendant or militate against him.

"(e) Because his honor erred in allowing, over objection, the witness B. G. Gregory to testify as to what took place between himself and Mrs. Marion Jones on the night of March 16, 1906, when, as it is respectfully submitted, that each and every portion of it should have been held to be irrelevant and incompetent because there was no proof, certainly no adequate proof, that the defendant, W. T. Jones, was aware of the transaction at the time of its occurrence or had any knowledge connected therewith; and because, as it is respectfully submitted, there is no proof that W. T. Jones was on the premises that night, or could in any sense be charged...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Compassion in Dying v. State of Wash., No. 94-35534
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 28, 1996
    ...1996). 13 Commonwealth v. Mink, 123 Mass. 422, 428-29 (Mass.1877); Blackburn v. State, 23 Ohio St. 146, 163 (Ohio 1872); State v. Jones, 86 S.C. 17, 67 S.E. 160, 165 (S.C.1910); State v. Willis, 255 N.C. 473, 121 S.E.2d 854 14 Research indicates that the last prosecution in the U.S. for att......
  • State v. Lynn, No. 21609
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 2, 1981
    ...a verdict, provided nothing like coercion takes place. State v. [277 S.C. 229] Darr, 262 S.C. 585, 206 S.E.2d 870 (1974); State v. Jones, 86 S.C. 17, 67 S.E. 160, 165 (1910). Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), approved the instruction of the trial judge......
  • State v. Bolyn, (No. 12344.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 4, 1928
    ...S. E. 135; State v. Hutchings, 24 S. C. 142; State v. Smith, 18 S. C. 149; State v. Sharpe, 132 S. C. 236, 128 S. E. 722; State v. Jones, 86 S. C. 17, 67 S. E. 160. The seventh exception imputes error to the presiding judge "in admitting in evidence the books and records of the bank, consis......
  • Terry v. Richardson, (No. 11150.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 12, 1923
    ...case of Coleman v. Stevens, 117 S. E. 305, decided at this term. See Harper v. Abercrombie, 115 S. C. 360, 105 S. E. 749; State v. Jones, 86 S. C. 17, 67 S. E. 160; Caldwell v. Duncan, 87 S. C. 331, 69 S. E. 660; Nickles v. Railway, 74 S. C. 102, 54 S. E. 255. The only point remaining for c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Compassion in Dying v. State of Wash., No. 94-35534
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 28, 1996
    ...1996). 13 Commonwealth v. Mink, 123 Mass. 422, 428-29 (Mass.1877); Blackburn v. State, 23 Ohio St. 146, 163 (Ohio 1872); State v. Jones, 86 S.C. 17, 67 S.E. 160, 165 (S.C.1910); State v. Willis, 255 N.C. 473, 121 S.E.2d 854 14 Research indicates that the last prosecution in the U.S. for att......
  • State v. Lynn, No. 21609
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 2, 1981
    ...a verdict, provided nothing like coercion takes place. State v. [277 S.C. 229] Darr, 262 S.C. 585, 206 S.E.2d 870 (1974); State v. Jones, 86 S.C. 17, 67 S.E. 160, 165 (1910). Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), approved the instruction of the trial judge......
  • State v. Bolyn, (No. 12344.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 4, 1928
    ...S. E. 135; State v. Hutchings, 24 S. C. 142; State v. Smith, 18 S. C. 149; State v. Sharpe, 132 S. C. 236, 128 S. E. 722; State v. Jones, 86 S. C. 17, 67 S. E. 160. The seventh exception imputes error to the presiding judge "in admitting in evidence the books and records of the bank, consis......
  • Terry v. Richardson, (No. 11150.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 12, 1923
    ...case of Coleman v. Stevens, 117 S. E. 305, decided at this term. See Harper v. Abercrombie, 115 S. C. 360, 105 S. E. 749; State v. Jones, 86 S. C. 17, 67 S. E. 160; Caldwell v. Duncan, 87 S. C. 331, 69 S. E. 660; Nickles v. Railway, 74 S. C. 102, 54 S. E. 255. The only point remaining for c......
  • 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