State v. Milam
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | POPE, J |
| Citation | 65 S. C. 321,43 S.E. 677 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1903 |
| Parties | STATE. v. MILAM et al. |
43 S.E. 677
65 S. C. 321
STATE.
v.
MILAM et al.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
March 7, 1903.
CRIMINAL LAW—COMPETENCY OP JUROR—EVIDENCE AT FORMER TRIAL.
1. The action of the trial judge in allowing a juror to be impaneled who says that he has expressed an opinion, but will be governed by the law and the evidence, is within his discretion.
2. Where, at a second trial of two defendants for crime, a witness for one of the defendants, who had formerly been tried alone, is dead, his former evidence is competent at the second trial in behalf of such defendant, although his codefendant, then on trial, objects to the same.
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Laurens County; Watts, Judge.
Ferrel Milam and Enoch McCoy were convicted of larceny, and Milam appeals. Reversed.
Ferguson & Featherstone and W. R. Rich-ey, for appellant.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Gunter, for the State.
POPE, J. Both defendants above named, being jointly indicted for larceny, were jointly tried therefor, were convicted, and, after having been sentenced, the defendant Ferrel Milam alone appealed to this court. His appeal virtually raises but two questions, namely: (1) Was the circuit judge in error in allowing J. H. Kennedy, who was sworn upon his voir dire as to his having expressed an opinion upon the case, to be sworn as a juror? (2) Was the circuit judge in error in refusing to admit as testimony in behalf of the defendant Ferrel Milam the testimony of Harry Madden and Sallie Milam, both deceased, which had been offered at the first trial of said Ferrel Milam, when he (Ferrel Milam) alone was on trial on the foregoing indictment?
1. The circuit judge did not err in allowing J. H. Kennedy to be sworn as a juror to try this cause. This court has several times upheld the statute of this state which gives to the discretion of the circuit judge the deter mination of the question whether a juror is indifferent in the cause; and in the State v. Haines, 36 S. C, at page 507, 15 S. E. 556, the following language was used: "At this moment we cannot recall another instance of a statutory provision relating to the trial of causes such as that now under consideration that has been passed upon so frequently by this court, and that, too, with such distinctness. We have held in every case that this matter is confided by the law to the decision of the circuit judge, whose decision thereon, so long as it relates to a question of fact, will not be reviewed by this court." The case of State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Steadman, No. 16339
...36 S.E.2d 742; State v. McDonald, 184 S.C. 290, 192 [216 S.C. 588] S.E. 365; State v. Mittle, 120 S.C. 526, 113 S.E. 335; State v. Milam, 65 S.C. 321, 43 S.E. The rationale of the doctrine upon which the foregoing cases are based, is well expressed in 50 C.J.S., Juries, § 232-a, page 980: '......
-
State v. Faries, (No. 11277.)
...v. Coleman, supra; State v. Summers, 36 S. C. 479, 15 S. E. 369; State v. Murphy, 48 S. C. 1, 25 S. E. 43; State v. Milam, 65 S. C. 327, 43 S. E. 677; State v. Bethune, 86 S C. 143, 67 S. E. 466; State v. Sanders, 103 S. C. 220, etc., 88 S. E. 10) will disclose that the phrase "abuse of dis......
-
State v. Mittle, (No. 10951.)
...State v. Coleman, 20 S. C. 449; State v. Murphy, 48 S. C. 1, 25 S. E. 43; State v. Summers, 36 S. C. 479, 15 S. E. 369; State v. Milam, 65 S. C. 321, 43 S. E. 677; State v. Bethune, 85 S. C. 143, 67 S. E. 466; State v. Sanders, 103 S. C. 220, 88 S. E. 10. The only case cited by appellant, h......
-
State v. Miller, No. 16006.
...just above, the opinion then quoted at length from the cases of State v. Bethune, 86 S.C. 143, 144, 67 S.E. 466;'and State v. Milam, 65 S.C. 321, 43 S.E. 677; and then discussed the case of State v. Graham, 161 S.C. 362, 159 S.E. 838. It would be a work of supererogation for us to undertake......
-
State v. Steadman, 16339
...36 S.E.2d 742; State v. McDonald, 184 S.C. 290, 192 [216 S.C. 588] S.E. 365; State v. Mittle, 120 S.C. 526, 113 S.E. 335; State v. Milam, 65 S.C. 321, 43 S.E. The rationale of the doctrine upon which the foregoing cases are based, is well expressed in 50 C.J.S., Juries, § 232-a, page 980: '......
-
State v. Steadman, 16339.
...36 S.E.2d 742; State v. McDonald, 184 S.C. 290, 192 [216 S.C. 588] S.E. 365; State v. Mittle, 120 S.C. 526, 113 S.E. 335; State v. Milam, 65 S.C. 321, 43 S.E. 677. The rationale of the doctrine upon which the foregoing cases are based, is well expressed in 50 C.J.S., Juries, § 232-a, page 9......
-
State v. Faries, 11277.
...State v. Coleman, supra; State v. Summers, 36 S.C. 479, 15 S.E. 369; State v. Murphy, 48 S.C. 1, 25 S.E. 43; State v. Milam, 65 S.C. 327, 43 S.E. 677; State v. Bethune, 86 S C. 143, 67 S.E. 466; State v. Sanders, 103 S.C. 220, etc., 88 S.E. 10) will disclose that the phrase "abuse of discre......
-
State v. Faries, (No. 11277.)
...v. Coleman, supra; State v. Summers, 36 S. C. 479, 15 S. E. 369; State v. Murphy, 48 S. C. 1, 25 S. E. 43; State v. Milam, 65 S. C. 327, 43 S. E. 677; State v. Bethune, 86 S C. 143, 67 S. E. 466; State v. Sanders, 103 S. C. 220, etc., 88 S. E. 10) will disclose that the phrase "abuse of dis......