State v. Keller, 16792

• Decision Date: 04 November 1953
• Docket Number: No. 16792,16792
• Citation: 224 S.C. 257,78 S.E.2d 373
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. KELLER.

Page 373

78 S.E.2d 373

224 S.C. 257

STATE v. KELLER.

No. 16792.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 4, 1953.

R. B. Hildebrand, York, for appellant.

Robert W. Hemphill, Sol., Chester, for respondent.

BAKER, Chief Justice.

At the May (1952) term of the Court of General Sessions for York County, the appellant was tried and convicted, with recommendation to mercy, on an indictment returned by the York County Grand Jury charging him with the murder of Raymond W. Jackson, Jr., whom he shot and killed with a .32 caliber pistol on December 19, 1951.

Following appellant's conviction, formal motion for a new trial was made on substantially the same grounds as this appeal is bottomed, and marked 'heard,' with the understanding that it would be argued later, and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Thereafter, the motion was argued and refused, and this appeal followed.

The sole defense of the appellant was insanity; and his exceptions are:

'1. It was error to refuse Motion for New Trial on the ground that the Trial Court erred in not permitting the State's witness Terry Moffitt to give his opinion as to the mental condition of the Defendant.

'2. The Circuit Judge erred in overruling Defendant's second ground of a Motion for a New Trial in holding that the second ground did not recite error for the reason that counsel did not ask any of the other witnesses named any questions as to their opinion on the sanity or insanity of the Defendant Keller.

'3. The Court erred in finding and holding that the error, if any, was not prejudicial to the Defendant, and that the evidence not admitted was only cumulative in its nature.'

Prior to entering upon a direct discussion of these exceptions, it should be stated that two well qualified psychiatrists, viz., Dr. Wilbur Merkley, a witness for the State, and Dr. John M. Pratt, a witness for the defendant-appellant, both of whom had observed and examined the appellant for a sufficient length of time to form an opinion of his mental condition, and, having had the benefit of his history from former internments in various mental hospitals, testified that although the appellant was far from a normal person, he undoubtedly knew right from wrong. Dr. Pratt would not express an opinion as to whether appellant knew right from wrong at the time of the commission of the crime, but limited it to the time he had him under observation. Knowing right from wrong is the test in this State when a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity or mental irresponsibility is interposed as the defense to the commission of a crime. State v. Anderson, 181 S.C. 527, 188 S.E. 186.

The appellant was a frequenter of the place of business of the witness Terry Moffitt, who described this business as 'Service station, beer and cafeteria,' and was located about seven miles from Rock Hill on the highway leading to Lancaster. During the afternoon of the day of the killing, the appellant and the deceased had been drinking beer and whiskey in Moffitt's place of business, and though he described them as rather 'high,' he stated that neither was drunk. We now quote from the testimony of Mr. Moffitt:

'Q. On these various visits that he made down to your place, did you notice anything peculiar about Mr. Keller when he would come down there? A. Yes, sir, he has come down there several times. He worked out at Celanese, and he came down there and when he drank a beer or two, I don't know, he would just go all to pieces and get sleepy. I would tell him to go out and get in his car. I have pulled his car up to the back of the place, right to the back door and told him to get in it. I told him 'take you a nap, I'll wake you up.' There wouldn't be a soul out there, it would be the first of the week and nobody would be there but me and him. He would go out, stay there a couple of minutes and come in, claiming that something was after him.

'Q. He claimed that something was after him? A. Yes. I said 'ain't nobody bothering you, there's nobody here but you and I.' I said 'go lay down' and he would go lay down and say the same thing. He acted like something bothered him all the time. I have called Woodrow Snipes to come after him and take him home, to bring a driver to drive his car.

'Q. Would that be by reason of the fact that he seemed to be affected in some way? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. When he was there at your place when other people would be in the place, would he have anything to do with those people? A. He didn't say a word to nobody, only just stared at them.

'Q. He would just stand and stare? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. He wouldn't talk or have anything to do with anybody, if there was a customer in the place? A. No, sir.

'Q. Would he engage in conversation or talk to them? A. No, sir. He would speak to them if they spoke to him, and nine times out of ten ask them to have a beer, but he wouldn't say any more.

'Q. He wouldn't speak unless somebody spoke to him? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. In other words, he kept strictly to himself? A. That's right.

'Q. From your seeing him there in your place at frequent intervals, over the eight month period of time, would you say he was a normal person? A. No, sir.

'Q. Would you say that he was a person that was suffering from some sort of mental----

'Mr. Hemphill: Objection to that.

'Mr. Hildebrand: Your Honor----

'The Court: The man is no expert. He can tell what the man did, any abnormality the layman could observe, but as to the mental condition of somebody, let...