State v. Parker, 19159
| Decision Date | 02 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 19159,19159 |
| Citation | 179 S.E.2d 31,255 S.C. 359 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Boyce Lee PARKER, Appellant. |
John W. Williams, Jr., Columbia, for appellant.
Solicitor John W. Foard, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant, Boyce Lee Parker, and one John Cutler were fellow inmates at the Manning Correctional Institution of South Carolina. During the early morning hours of May 17, 1969, Cutler was stabbed to death with a knife while he was lying in bed. Appellant was charged with the murder of Cutler and was subsequently convicted of the offense with a recommendation to mercy, receiving the mandatory life sentence. His appeal presents two questions for determination.
The first issue concerns the refusal by the court to admonish the jurors, prior to an adjournment in the trial, that they should not begin their deliberations until all of the evidence had been reviewed. The State completed the presentation of its testimony just before a recess for lunch. Before excusing the jurors for the lunch hour they were instructed as follows by the court:
Counsel for appellant then asked the court to further instruct the jurors 'that they should not deliberate until all of the evidence is in.' The court refused the requested instruction and appellant charges that this was error. He contends that the refusal to so admonish the jury denied him a fair trial. There is no merit in the contention.
The rule is well settled that jurors should not, prior to the submission of the case to them, converse with outsiders or among themselves on any subject connected with the trial, or form or express any opinion thereabout; and that the jurors should be so admonished when they are permitted to separate during the trial. State v. Wells, 249 S.C. 249, 153 S.E.2d 304; 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1361.
The trial judge admonished the jurors in this case that they were not to discuss the case with anyone or with each other during their absence from the courtroom. The instruction given to the jury was in substantial compliance with the foregoing rule.
In any event, however, the record is devoid of the slightest indication of prejudice or injury to appellant from the refusal to admonish the jury in the language of the request. If the jury complied with the instruction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Quillien
...sufficient to afford a basis for a reasonable inference on a point in issue. 22a C.J.S. Criminal Law § 708, pp. 944--945; State v. Parker, 255 S.C. 359, 179 S.E.2d 31; State v. Jordan, 258 S.C. 340, 188 S.E.2d Once a basis for a reasonable inference is provided, the demonstrative evidence i......
-
State v. Hoffman
...Jurors should be instructed not to discuss the case, even with each other, until the case is submitted to them. Id.; State v. Parker, 255 S.C. 359, 179 S.E.2d 31 (1971). Both Gallman and Pierce are distinguishable on their facts. In both cases, the judge condoned premature discussion among ......
-
Gallman v. State, 23582
...be admonished not to discuss the case with anyone, including each other, prior to the submission of the case to them. State v. Parker, 255 S.C. 359, 179 S.E.2d 31 (1971). The purpose behind the requirement for juror silence on the case prior to submission to the jury was stated succinctly i......
-
State v. Pierce, 22597
...be admonished not to discuss the case with anyone, including each other, prior to the submission of the case to them. State v. Parker, 255 S.C. 359, 179 S.E.2d 31 (1971). Jurors are presumed to follow the law as instructed. Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 99 S.Ct. 2132, 60 L.Ed.2d 713 The ......