State v. Lowman

Decision Date27 May 1926
Docket Number11999.
CitationState v. Lowman, 133 S.E. 457, 134 S.C. 485 (S.C. 1926)
PartiesSTATE v. LOWMAN et al.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Aiken County; H. F Rice, Judge.

Demon Lowman, alias Son Lowman, and others were convicted of murder, and they appeal.New trial granted.

N. J Frederick, of Columbia, for appellants.

B. D Carter, Sol., of Bamberg, and R. L. Gunter and J. B. Salley both of Aiken, for the State.

PURDY A. A. J.

The following statement is taken from the case on appeal:

"On the 25th day of April, 1925, Sheriff H. H. Howard was killed while he and his three deputies were attempting to search the house and premises of Sam Lowman for contraband whisky; the said officers being at that time armed with a search warrant duly issued.The appellants were also wounded at the time.Bertha was taken to Leesville Hospital, and Clarence and Demon, alias Son Lowman, and two other defendants, Rosa and Birdie Lowman, were taken to the state penitentiary, all of whom were thereafter lodged in Aiken county jail on May 8th.
Upon indictment charging the appellants and the said Birdie and Rosa Lowman with the murder of the said H. H. Howard, they were duly arraigned on May 9th May, 1925, term of court of general sessions for Aiken county.In answer to the court's inquiry, they all stated that they had no counsel.Whereupon the court, at the time of arraignment, appointed counsel for them; members of the Aiken bar being appointed for each of the defendants to represent them in the trial of the case.On the fourth day after arraignment, the case was called for trial.No motion was made for a continuance; counsel for each defendant announcing in open court that they were ready for trial.Whereupon the trial proceeded before his honor, Judge H. F. Rice and jury, resulting in a verdict of not guilty as to Birdie and Rosa Lowman, but guilty as to the appellants, with recommendation to mercy for Bertha Lowman.Judge Rice sentenced the appellants Demon, alias Son Lowman, and Clarence Lowman to be electrocuted on June 12th, and sentenced Bertha Lowman to life imprisonment.No motion for new trial was made, but from this sentence and judgment the said Demon, alias Son, Clarence, and Bertha Lowman now appeal; notice of appeal having been served within due time.
While all the appellants were wounded at the time Sheriff Howard was killed, Bertha's condition appearing serious for a few days, at the time of the trial and at the trial neither of them exhibited evidence of weakness or unfitness for trial.Bertha's arm was still carried in a sling, but otherwise she appeared strong.The other two appellants showed no signs of ever having been wounded, and neither of the appellants made any complaint, either themselves or by their counsel, that they were unable to stand trial.There was nothing immediately preceding or in the course of the trial to evidence any hostile or unusual feeling against the appellants."

On account of the nature and rapidity of the concurrences at the time that Sheriff Howard came to his death, it is extremely difficult to make a satisfactory statement of the events that transpired, and, besides, an extended statement is not necessary.The sheriff, with three deputies, McElheney, Robinson, and Sheppard approached the house of Sam Lowman, having a warrant to search the house for contraband liquor, and the warrant was in the possession of Robinson.They did not know where Lowman lived, and so, seeing three boys in a field about 50 yards away from the house, they stopped and asked them if Sam Lowman lived there.These were negroes, and one of them, Demon Lowan, alias Son Lowman, was about 21 years old; Clarence Lowman, then 14 years old, and a small boy named Roy.(In addition to these three, who were members of the household of Sam Lowman, his family consisted of the woman, Annie, who was afterwards killed, the mother of Demon and Bertha, Rosa, the wife of Demon, who was about his age, Bertha, the sister of Demon, and a young girl named Birdie.)

The officers approached the house, and stopped in front of it; the sheriff and Robinson going to the right of the house, Sheppard going to the left, and McElheney going to the front door.There were some women at the back of the house.Upon seeing the officers, they ran to the house, and were intercepted at the back door by the sheriff, who told them to stand back, "and Bertha grabbed the sheriff."Annie, the mother of Demon and Bertha, attempted to assault Robinson with an axe, and, Sheppard interfering, she threatened to assault him with the axe, and he shot and killed her.

It appears that Demon Lowman entered from the front of the house, and got a pistol and fired on McElheney, and afterwards exchanged shots with Robinson in the yard.Some one shot the sheriff, and killed him at the rear of the house, and during the mêlée Bertha and Demon were wounded, and Clarence was afterwards also shot.One of the witnesses said that all of the events in the house occurred in a few seconds.

It is manifest, from the nature of the case, that, if the judgments against the defendants are to stand, there must have been a conspiracy on the part of the defendants to attack the officers.It is not the province of this court to discuss the testimony, but from the nature of the testimony it will not be amiss to say that a conspiracy could not have been formed by all of the defendants to attack the officers after the officers arrived upon the premises, and the testimony given by the witnesses does not disclose that a conspiracy existed before the visit of the officers.The concluding part of the preliminary statement in the case is:

"There was nothing immediately preceding, or in the course of the trial, to evidence any hostile or unusual feeling against the appellants."

This statement is not convincing to the court that a deep feeling against the defendants did not exist.In the first place, it would have been contrary to human nature for the people of the county not to have felt deeply incensed over the slaying of a useful officer and a highly honored citizen, and, in the next place, the able and conscientious trial judge deemed it expedient to state in his charge the reason for the appearance of the counsel appointed by the court for the defendants.The reason for this is manifest.The judge knew, or feared, that without such statement the resentment which existed in the minds of the community might react against the attorneys.Without such idea in his mind, there would have been no reason for making such statement in his charge.

His honor charged the jury, in part, as follows:

"Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen of the Jury: This case is drawing to a close.These defendants, Demon Lowman, Clarence Lowman and Bertha Lowman are the defendants that you are to try.As to Rosa and Birdie Lowman, you will return a verdict of 'not guilty.'Before I go into the law of the case.I want to say this, so that there may be no misunderstanding as to the attorneys
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
  • State v. Francis
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 25 Enero 1929
    ...In their argument, counsel for appellants cite, as authority to sustain their exception to the court's ruling, the case of State v. Lowman, 134 S.C. 485, 133 S.E. 457. do not find in that case any holding of this court on a motion for continuance; in fact, the record shows affirmatively, "N......
  • State v. Campbell
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 13 Marzo 1928
    ... ... Campbell was that, at the time he fired at Taylor, he did not ... know that either Carlisle or Pinckney was present, and not ... until he turned from looking in the direction of Taylor did ... he see Pinckney Campbell ...          In the ... case of the State against Lowman, 134 S.C. 485, 133 S.E. p ... 457, this court said: ... "It is manifest, from the nature of the case, that, if ... the judgments against the defendants are to stand, there must ... have been a conspiracy on the part of the defendants to ... attack the officers. It is not the province of this ... ...

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