State v. Miller

• Decision Date: 20 February 1906
• Citation: 53 S.E. 426,73 S.C. 277
• Parties: STATE v. MILLER et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

53 S.E. 426

73 S.C. 277

STATE v. MILLER et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 20, 1906

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Saluda County; Purdy Judge.

Sion Miller and another were convicted of manslaughter, and appeal. Affirmed.

C. J Ramage, for appellants. R. A. Cooper, for the State.

JONES J.

Sion Miller, Joe B. Miller, and Russell McCormick were indicted for the murder of Richard Truesdale. Sion Miller and Russell McCormick were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary at hard labor for 10 years.

1. The homicide occurred in Saluda county, in the afternoon of June 11, 1904, at Long Bridge on the Mt. Willing road leading from Batesburg to said bridge. The defendants that afternoon, previous to the homicide, passed by the home of W. L. Wise on said road, about three miles from Long Bridge, going in the direction of said bridge. The witness W L. Wise was, over objection, permitted to testify that about 15 or 20 minutes before defendants passed his house that afternoon he heard hollering and pistol shots up the road in the direction from which they were coming, and this ruling is the foundation of the first exception, the appellant alleging that the testimony was not sufficiently connected in point of time with the killing and not calculated to explain any phase of the homicide. The witness Lawrence Hartley, a negro, was, over objection, permitted to testify as to the unprovoked and violent conduct of defendant Russell McCormick towards him on said road that afternoon, about one-quarter of a mile from Wise's house. The witness testified: "Mr. McCormick said: 'Hello, nigger.' I said: 'Good evening, Mister.' He said: 'Raise your hat to me. If you don't, I will shoot your God damn brains out.' I could not raise my hat at once. He caught hold of my mule's bridle and drew a knife on me and said: 'If you don't raise your hat to me I will cut your God damn heart out.' And I raised my hat to him." This testimony was admitted on the ground that it tended to show the defendant's state of mind a short time before the homicide. This ruling is the basis of the second exception, which contends that such conduct was not connected with the homicide and had no tendency to show defendant's frame of mind towards the deceased. The general rule is that proof of distinct and independent offenses is not admissible on the trial of a person accused of crime, but there are exceptions to or modifications of this general rule, as where such evidence reasonably tends to show the malice, intent, or motive of the defendant with respect to the crime charged, or to show the identity of the defendant and his connection with the crime charged, or where the offense is so closely connected with the crime charged as to bring it within the rule of res gestae. Wharton's Crim. Ev. (8th Ed.) § § '30-47. See, also, a full and elaborate note to People v. Molineux, 62 L. R. A. 193. The testimony admitted tended to show that the defendants were, a short time before the homicide, approaching the place where it occurred, armed with a deadly weapon and with a mind ready for mischief. The conduct, actions, and general behavior of the accused immediately before the killing is admissible to show that he was armed and in a vicious humor. 4 Elliott on Ev. § 3029.

2. The sixth exception alleges error in permitting the witness W. C Duncan to testify, over objection, on cross-examination by the solicitor, that defendants, 5 or 10 minutes after the homicide, in a short conversation with witness, said that they had shot a darkey. The ground of objection was not made known to the circuit court, but the testimony is clearly competent to show that they...