State v. Mason
| Decision Date | 23 February 1899 |
| Citation | 54 S.C. 240,32 S.E. 357 |
| Parties | STATE. v. MASON. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Indictment—Fohm—Motion to Quash—Appeal —Murder—Malice—Instructions. 1. An indictment should not be quashed when it concludes with the words "against the peace and dignity of the same state aforesaid, " in stead of the words "against the peace and dignity of the state, " as required by Const, art. 5, § 31, as the additional words may be regarded as surplusage.
2. An order overruling a motion to quash an indictment is not appealable.
3. A charge in a trial for murder that malice is implied from an intentional killing without justification or excuse is not subject to exception.
4. An exception to a portion of the charge alleged to be erroneous should point out wherein it is erroneous.
5. A charge, on a trial for murder, that if the jury have a reasonable doubt as between the fact of defendant's acting under strong provocation, exciting sudden passion, and the deliberateness which would show malice, they should give defendant the benefit of the doubt, and find the lesser rather than the greater crime, was not objectionable as precluding the jury from rendering any verdict except one for murder or manslaughter, it appearing that it was followed by an instruction that, if a doubt arose as between any crime at all and defendant's innocence, they should find him not guilty.
Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Laurens county; J. C. Klugh, Judge.
Charlie Mason was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
W. B. Richey, for appellant
T. S. Lease, for the State.
JONES, J. Appellant, having_ been convicted of murder, and sentenced, seeks to reverse the judgment on the grounds now considered.
1. It is excepted that the circuit court erred in refusing to quash the indictment on the ground that it concluded with the words "against the peace and dignity of the same state aforesaid, " instead of with the words "against the peace and dignity of the state, " as required in section 31 of article 6 of the constitution. The motion to quash was properly overruled. All the words required by the constitution are in the indictment, and the additional words "same" and "aforesaid" may be regarded as surplusage. State v. Bobinson, 27 S. C. 618, 4 S. E. 570.
2. After the motion to quash was refused, appellant gave notice of intention to appeal, and then objected to proceeding with the trial until the appeal was disposed of. He was ordered to trial. In the second and third exceptions this ruling is complained of on the ground that the notice of appeal from the order refusing to quash...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Leeke
...of the killing. Malice may be presumed in South Carolina in the absence of circumstances of excuse or justification. State v. Mason, 54 S.C. 240, 32 S.E. 357 (1898). If the presumption was permissible, e.g., absence of circumstances of excuse, the presumption of malice would satisfy the Sta......
-
State v. McMillan
...is premature, and must therefore be dismissed." See also State v. McKettrick, 13 S.C. 439; State v. Shirer, 20 S.C. 392; State v. Mason, 54 S.C. 240, 32 S.E. 357; v. Hughes, 56 S.C. 540, 35 S.E. 214; State v. Byars, 79 S.C. 174, 60 S.E. 448; State v. Gellis, 158 S.C. 471, 155 S.E. 849. In S......
-
State v. McDaniel
... ... presents two ideas, differing essentially from each other. In ... one case an excuse may be made in order to show that the ... party accused is not guilty; in another, by showing that, ... though guilty, he is less so than he appears to be." In ... the case of State v. Mason, 54 S.C. 240, 32 S.E ... 357, the court sustained a charge to the effect that malice ... is implicated from an intentional killing, without ... justification or excuse ... The ... eighth exception complains of error in charging the jury in ... these words: ""So, if you ... ...
-
State v. Powers
...in the case of State v. Robinson, 27 S. C. 615, 4 S. E. 570; and finally, under the present constitution, in the case of State v. Mason, 54 S. C. 240, 32 S. E. 357. So that the question must now be regarded as settled. The point made by counsel for appellant, in his argument, that the rule ......