State v. Rector

• Decision Date: 01 July 1932
• Docket Number: 13441.
• Citation: 164 S.E. 872,166 S.C. 312
• Parties: STATE v. RECTOR et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

164 S.E. 872

166 S.C. 312

STATE v. RECTOR et al.

No. 13441.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 1, 1932

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Greenville County; M M. Mann, Judge.

Carlos A. Rector and another were convicted as accessories after the fact of manslaughter, and, from an order denying a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, they appeal.

Affirmed.

See also (S. C.) 164 S.E. 865.

Following is the order of the circuit judge, directed to be reported:

"This case comes before me under the Order of the Supreme Court allowing the Defendants to move before me at this time for a new trial based upon the grounds of after discovered evidence.

"I have before me the original petition of the defendants before the Supreme Court, together with the Return of the State of South Carolina, in which preceding motion was made direct to the Supreme Court for leave to make this motion before me, and also such additional affidavits, exhibits and records as both the defendant Petitioners and the State have seen fit to submit on the argument before me. Several hours were devoted to argument, in which Counsel were given ample time to discuss fully all the points relied upon. After careful consideration I conclude that the showing made would not warrant me in granting the new trial sought for the reasons that in my opinion the showing does not disclose that the evidence proposed as the basis for this motion is of that integrity, evidential or otherwise, that would justify the granting of the motion.

"It appears to me that the matters proposed to be submitted as evidence:

"(a) Are cumulative.

"(b) That the degree of diligence required by the law under circumstances like this has not be exercised by defendants or their counsel.

"(c) That the facts claimed would probably not change the result of the former trial.

"For these reasons it is:

"Ordered that the motion for a new trial be and the same is hereby overruled."

J. Frank Eppes and Plumer C. Cothran, both of Greenville, and Cole L. Blease, of Columbia, for appellants.

J. G. Leatherwood, Sol., and C. G. Wyche, both of Greenville, for the State.

W. H. TOWNSEND, A. A. J.

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court in the case of the State v. Carlos A. Rector et al., refusing a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

See opinion in case filed December 2, 1931. (S. C.) 164 S.E. 865.

The order of the circuit judge will be reported.

Some of the affidavits on which the motion was based were cumulative; but none were excluded from consideration on that ground. After consideration of all the evidence offered and the rebutting affidavits, the circuit judge held: "The showing does not disclose that the evidence proposed as the basis of this motion is of that integrity, evidential or otherwise, that would justify the granting of the motion *** C. The facts claimed would probably not change the result of the former trial."

The controlling issue was one of fact. What credit or weight should be given to the affidavits on which the motion was based?

In their exceptions appellants contend this should have been left for a jury on a new trial; when in all probability a jury of twelve men, who do not use the same yardstick as lawyers and judges, would entertain different notions as to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. More than one inference may be drawn from the evidence. Appellants' contention was repudiated in State v. Duestoe, 1 Bay, 380, where it was said: "It was the duty of the judges," under the then existing Constitution "to judge, from the necessity of the case, not only of the credibility of the witnesses brought forward in this manner, to destroy the verdict of twelve men upon their oath, but to inquire into and sift such affidavits with an exact and scrupulous attention; and to direct any other examinations which could in any manner develop the truth of the matter; as no other body of men could, at this stage of proceedings, take it under consideration but the judges." This jurisdiction has now been conferred on the circuit court or judge. The Supreme Court is without jurisdiction to weigh contradictory evidence or to review findings thereon...