State v. Kelley
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | McIVER |
| Citation | 24 S.E. 45,45 S.C. 659 |
| Parties | STATE. v. KELLEY. |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1896 |
STATE.
v.
KELLEY.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
March 6, 1896.
1. A jury retired about 4 o'clock p. m., with the usual instructions about bringing in a sealed verdict. They were furnished with supper, and with breakfast the next morning. The sheriff was then instructed to give them nothing more to eat. and they remained in the room till about 7 o'clock p. m. of the second day. They then tame in at the direction of the judge, who, learning that their disagreement was one of fact, sent them back to the jury room, and some time during the night they rendered a sealed verdict. Before retiring the second time, the foreman said, "We have been in the room twenty-four hours, and can't agree." It also appeared that on three separate occasions the jury had attempted,
[24 S.E. 46]through the officer in charge, to communicate to the judge that they could not agree, and wished to be discharged. Held, that the case was within Rev. St. § 2409, providing that when a jury, after due deliberation, return into court a second time without having agreed on a verdict, "they shall not be sent out again without their own consent, " and that the jury should not have been sent out the second time.
2. In such case, without relying on the statutory provisions, the jury were entitled to their discharge after a sufficient time had been afforded them to discuss the subject and come to their conclusion, and their detention under the circumstances was unwarranted.
Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Darlington county; D. A. Townsend, Judge.
J. Newitt Kelley was convicted of an assault with intent to kill, and appeals.
Reversed.
This appeal involves the question of the detention of a jury after a failure to agree on the facts, and the respective statements of the officer in charge of the jury and of the judge are as follows:
Affidavit of R. J. Scarborough:
"State of South Carolina, County of Darlington. Personally appears R. J. Scarborough, who, being first duly sworn, says that at the March term of the court of general sessions for the county and state aforesaid, owing to the sickness of his father, the sheriff of said county, deponent was in the court room in the capacity of deputy sheriff and constable during the greater part of the term, and for the most of the time that the petit jury charged with the trial of the above-stated case were in the jury room; that said jury retired to their room for the consideration of said case, after the charge of the judge, about 4 o'clock p. m. on the —— day of March, 1895. After the jury had been out two or three hours, there was a knock at their door, and, upon deponent's responding to it, the foreman requested him to tell the judge that they could not agree. Deponent did so, and his honor directed him to inquire whether their difficulty was a matter of law or of fact. What the foreman said in answer to this deponent does not now recollect; but, upon deponent's return, his honor instructed him to let the jury alone. By direction of his honor, the jury were given supper, and, remaining in the jury room, were the next morning given breakfast. Some time after the court convened that morning, deponent was called by a knock at the door of the jury room, and the foreman requested him to say to the judge 'that, if they stayed in there a month, they couldn't agree, and they desired to come out' Upon conveying this message, his honor told deponent to leave them alone. At dinner time of that day, and also at supper time, deponent went to his honor for permission to feed the jury, but his honor declined to permit this to be done. Some time after dark of that day, deponent was for a third time called to the jury room door by a knock, and was told by the foreman to tell the judge 'that they couldn't agree, and were hungry, and wanted to get out.' The foreman came out, and the judge asked him if it was about that case, and, the foreman replying, 'Yes, ' the judge said he couldn't see one alone, let them all come out; and all the jurors came into the court room. His honor asked whether their disagreement was as to a matter of law or of fact. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Valliere
...comparable Page 637 statutes of other States seem to us to involve circumstances more coercive than those shown here. State v. Kelley, 45 S.C. 659, 663--666, 24 S.E. 45 (1895). State v. Simon, supra, at 445--446, 120 S.E. 230. See State v. Albers, 174 N.W.2d 649, 652--656 (Iowa, 1970); Wilk......
-
State v. Long
...403, 11 S.E. 292; Bratton v. Lowry, 39 S.C. 388, 17 S.E. 832; State v. Bennett, 40 S.C. 310, 18 S.E. 886; State v. Kelley, 45 S.C. 668, 24 S.E. 45; State v. Robertson, 54 S.C. 154, 31 S.E. 868. It appears, when the verdict was returned at the request of defendant's counsel, the jury was pol......
-
State v. Long
...11 S. E. 292; Bratton v. Dowry, 39 S. C. 388, 17 S. E. 832; State v. Bennett, 40 S. C. 310, 18 S. E. 886; State v. Kelley, 45 S. C. 668, 24 S. E. 45; State v. Robertson, 54 S. C. 154, 31 S. E. 868. It appears, when the verdict was returned at the request of defendant's counsel, the jury was......
-
Buff v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSP., 25195.
...violated where trial judge notified jury it would spend night in jury room unless it reached a unanimous verdict); State v. Kelley, 45 S.C. 659, 24 S.E. 45 (1896) (statute violated where jury deliberated from 4:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. the next day without lunch, indicated it could not agree......