State v. Perkins
Decision Date | 01 February 1916 |
Docket Number | 3585 |
Citation | 156 N.W. 73,36 S.D. 579 |
Parties | STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and respondent, v. HENRY E. PERKINS, Defendant and appellant. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Meade County, SD
#3585--Reversed
Harry P. Atwater, Gaffy & Stephens
Attorneys for Appellant.
Clarence C. Caldwell, Attorney General
Byron S. Payne, Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for the State.
Opinion filed February 1, 1916
Appellant was convicted, in the circuit court of Meade county, of having aided and abetted in receiving bank deposits into the Meade County Bank of Sturgis, of which defendant was then an officer, then and there knowing said bank to be insolvent. Before the trial of the cause appellant moved the court for a change of the place of trial to some other county, for the reason that a fair and impartial trial could not be had in Meade county by reason of public excitement, bias, and prejudice existing therein. There were many affidavits submitted both for and against this motion. From the showing made it clearly appears that the Meade County Bank, located at Sturgis, closed its doors on December 26, 1911; that the total number of depositors of said bank was about 1,300, about 800 of whom were residents of Meade county scattered widely throughout said county; that the county of Meade had $13,000 on deposit in said bank at the time of said failure; that the city of Sturgis, the county seat of said county, had $3,000 on deposit in said bank at said time; that four fire companies of Sturgis, eleven school districts of said county, seven or more fraternal insurance lodges, and different church societies all had funds deposited in said bank; that the dry climatic conditions for the two years preceding the suspension of said bank caused hard times, and, in connection with the failure of said bank, caused much hardship and suffering, and gave rise to a great deal of bitter, inflammatory talk and denunciation against defendant by the depositors of said bank and other citizens of said county; that the failure of said bank entered into the political issues in said Meade county during the political campaign of 1912; that about April 20, 1912, a candidate for Governor delivered a speech at Sturgis in which he arraigned and denounced the officers of said bank and stated that they ought to be in the penitentiary; that within an hour after the closing of said political speech one of the hearers thereof and a depositor who had suffered loss by reason of the failure of said bank assassinated the cashier of said bank and then committed suicide; that throughout the campaign preceding the general November election the question of the failure of said bank and the punishment of the officers and directors thereof was discussed as a political issue in said county; one set of candidates maintaining that their election meant the sending of said bank officers to the penitentiary. During the time between the failure of said bank and the trial of defendant many newspaper articles were published and circulated throughout said county condemnatory of the officials of said bank....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McLennan
...belief in the defendant's guilt, it is an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court to deny a change of venue. (State v. Perkins, 36 S.D. 579, 156 N.W. 73; v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. 106, 234 S.W. 72; State v. Dwyer, 29 Nev. 421, 91 P. 305; People v. Suesser, 132 Cal. 631, 64 P. 1095.) ......
-
State v. Meservey, 6537
...of the jurors should be, as far as possible, removed from the prejudice and excitement of others, as announced by this court in State v. Perkins, 156 N.W. 73. In allowing or refusing a change of venue the court must be governed by a sound judicial discretion and the material issue is whethe......
- State v. Perkins
-
State v. Demerly
...be without bias and prejudice, but they should be removed from the bias and prejudice of others. State v. Meservey, 220 N.W. 139; State v. Perkins, 156 N.W. 73. With these cautionary remarks we leave the matter of a change of venue in this case, if it shall again arise, to the sound judicia......