State v. King

• Decision Date: 08 October 1930
• Docket Number: 12991.
• Parties: STATE v. KING.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

155 S.E. 409

158 S.C. 251

STATE v. KING.

No. 12991.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 8, 1930

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Chester County; J. K Henry, Judge.

Rafe F King was convicted of murder, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Cross-examination of witness testifying as to defendant's good reputation as to trips which witness had made with defendant, was not improper.The following is the judge's charge to jury ordered reported with opinion:

"Gentlemen of the jury, give me your undivided attention.

"The indictment that I hold in my hand, is by the State of South Carolina charging Rafe F. King with murder, because, that on the 25th day of January, of this year, in York county, 'with hands and arms and cords, wires, ropes and belt, placed upon and around the neck and throat of Faye Wilson, with malice, did kill and murder her.' That is the charge; now, that is the charge. The defendant says, 'I didn't do it; I plead Not guilty.' That makes the issue that you have to settle--that makes the issue for you to settle. Did he or did he not with hand, cord, and other means named in this--either one of them--kill his wife on that occasion? Did he or not? That is for you, and you alone can settle it.

"But we come down to the charge of the law. Our system of jurisprudence provides for two sides to settle an issue like that; and I have often thought it represented somewhat what they call a tug-play party. Simply on these matters, I use this illustration--I want to use such illustration, as a boy could understand it, engaged in a tug-play--in the wisdom of the ages it has been brought out that is the best way to reach the truth and enforce the law. The two-tug play is two parties, one on either end of the rope, pulling that backward and forth as the strength of the opposing tuggers have in pulling the rope. At one time the rope goes beyond the mark; the other time it goes to the other side of the mark--and backward and forth the two sides of tuggers, pulling back and forth.

"Now, we come into court, that is what represents the procedure by the attorneys--the both sides--pulling back and forth. That is not a perfect illustration, but somewhat of an illustration. We will say the truth is between those two parties pulling and tugging at the rope; and your mind is the rope; and we have a mark in the middle of the rope, and the idea for--the idea is that, notwithstanding the attorneys, pulling hither and thither, backward and forward, as tuggers do on a rope, their minds must stay down between the two-- the place marked the middle of the rope--the truth is between the two. So, you are not to give so much attention to what the lawyers have said, except as it helps you to reach that truth in the center. That is what this pulling backwards and forwards means--one side carries it to his extreme as he sees it; the other side carries it to his extreme as he sees it; and your mind must find the truth. And you alone are responsible for finding the truth, under our system of jurisprudence. Why? Because you represent the State of South Carolina, and the State of South Carolina is interested in nothing else except the truth. The State of South Carolina wants no innocent party punished; the State of South Carolina wants no equally guilty man to escape. And that is the reason of this pulling, and all this effort, and all this pulling; but you are the final arbiters of what the truth is, and where the truth is. Now, keep that in your mind. You are solely responsible for what occurs here. You can nullify the truth by your finding; you can nullify the law in your finding. So your responsibility is heavier than it is upon me. I am charged under the law, in my charge, to give you the law and the exact law; but our system recognizes that one might make a mistake. None of us is perfect; and it has been provided that five other men shall review what I tell you is the law, and if any wrong is done by me it can be corrected in the interest of justice and innocency.

"And there are one or two instances in which you can be corrected. If you should happen to err in favor of the state--if you should ignore the testimony, the Supreme Court says you ignored it, and that man ought to have a new trial. If you wouldn't weigh the testimony, under the law which I shall give you, in favor of the State, that could be reviewed and reversed and sent back for a new trial. But if you commit an error in favor of the defendant, why that can't be reviewed; that is final.

"I am only calling your attention to this to show you the terrible responsibility upon you to find the truth, and you are interested in nothing else but the truth.

"Now, ample provision has been made-- you heard something about mercy in the case--a party tried, entitled to consideration on the side of mercy. That is provided for, amply provided for--in two places it is provided for, but you have nothing to do with mercy in your place. And there is often an abortion of justice in the Court where the jury perhaps undertakes to extend mercy. That is not your province; that is only--the Judge, under the limits of the law, can extend mercy in his apportioning out the sentences of the Court, within such limit. That is provided for, and, perchance, if after a person has been wronged and extenuating circumstances haven't been given due consideration by the jury, there is still another provision to take care of the side of mercy, and that is in the Executive of the State--the governor. So, there is ample provision; you have got nothing to do with it; your duty-- you are bound--your very soul is bound to find the truth, at its peril. That is what we want to find; that is what I want to impress upon you, not only in this case, but in all cases, because you can defeat law and defeat justice, and defeat everything else by stepping outside of your sphere, by undertaking to administer mercy. Now, keep that in your mind--you have nothing to do with. You remember your oath. Your oath is this: That you will a true verdict render--a true verdict render, according to the law and the evidence.

"Now, the word 'verdict' means 'the truth,' itself; that is what the word means--the spoken truth; and your oath is as if it were double in the matter of truth--a true truth spoken; and true, truth spoken; and you call on Almighty God to help you--'So help me God.' Now, there is your duty, and your only duty you have to perform. You are impartial; you have no interest in this matter; you want to reach the truth; that is clearly your own oath--you want the truth. The State of South Carolina doesn't demand anything else except the truth. Now, remember that, gentlemen. And you are not responsible for reaching the truth for anything else, but you are responsible for that, and you are not responsible, not to yourselves and your God, but you are responsible to every man, woman and child in the State of South Carolina, because you represent them all. And if you do wrong, you are representing them. Now, remember, I am not trying to persuade you to anything else in this case except to find the truth; and you take the law absolutely from me, and nobody else. That is the law.

"Now, what is the issue that you are to find? The State says, 'You killed your wife; you killed her in this way.' And that is the only thing you can consider, whether or not she was killed in one of the ways, by one of the means alleged in this indictment. If you find that she was shot, you will have to find him not guilty; if she fell off a house and was killed, you will have to find him not guilty. Was she strangled--was she strangulated by one of these means ?-- and the State has got to prove that to your satisfaction beyond any reasonable doubt, otherwise you have to render a verdict of not guilty. If you have a doubt in this proposition, you have to return a verdict of not guilty--the State of South Carolina doesn't want to have to punish an innocent person; and that is the reason the State has got to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Not any doubt, no; not a speculative doubt, no; not some imaginary doubt, no; but beyond that. What kind of a doubt?--upon which I could hesitate to find a verdict of guilty? Our law books say, upon a substantial doubt growing out of nothing else except the testimony and evidence you have heard here, that is the only doubt; not any flimsy, imaginary, conjured doubt, but any substantial doubt growing out of the evidence. That is the kind of doubt upon which you can return the verdict of not guilty. I have heard of men that doubt existence; and I have heard reasons why men said they didn't exist-- trying to prove there is no such thing as human existence; I have heard nonsensical things of that kind. We are not dealing in those psychological, irrelevant things, when you come to what kind of a doubt you can acquit a man on, you must give a reason, and give a reason out of the evidence for the doubt you have, then your verdict must be founded on the ground of that doubt.

"Now, I said the charge was murder. Now, what is murder? Murder is the felonious taking of human life, with malice aforethought, either express or implied. Now, get that; you are not accustomed to that definition. You state, "He killed him.' You perhaps would mean by that--murder; but it is not the definition. A man might kill one, and it might not be murder. I said, it was the killing of a human being with malice. So, malice is the heart of murder; without malice there can be no such thing as murder. I said, 'aforethought either express or implied.' That doesn't mean that the malice must have been thought of for any length of time beforehand. The law books say, and all the law that I know anything about, say if it is in the

...