State v. Reeder

Decision Date21 February 1908
PartiesSTATE. v. REEDER.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

60 S.E. 434
79 S.C. 139

STATE.
v.
REEDER.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 21, 1908.


1. Criminal Law—Punishment—Extent of Punishment.

The solicitor is properly permitted to read affidavits in aggravation of the manslaughter for which defendant was convicted, on his being called for sentence; it being a reasonable means to enable the court to exercise the discretion vested in it by Cr. Code 1902, § 120, to impose a sentence of not more than 30 nor less than 2 years' imprisonment.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Criminal Law, § 2517.]

2. Same—Reception of Evidence—Right of Accused to Confront Witnesses.

Permitting the solicitor to read affidavits in aggravation of the crime for which defendant was convicted, on his being called for sentence, does not deny defendant the constitutional right to be confronted by witnesses against him and to have the privilege of cross-examining them, since the verdict of the jury is not affected.

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Newberry county; F. Barron Grier, Special Judge.

Fred Reeder was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Blease & Dominick, for appellant.

Solicitor Cooper, for the State.

POPE, C. J. The defendant, Fred Reeder, was tried for murder at the June, 1907, term of court of general sessions for Newberry county before his honor, F. Barron Grier,

[60 S.E. 435]

special judge, and convicted of manslaughter. Upon his being called for sentence the presiding judge permitted the solicitor to read two affidavits tending greatly to aggravate the crime. The sole question presented by the appeal was as to whether or not it was error to admit these affidavits.

Section 120 of the Criminal Code of 1902 prescribes that the punishment for manslaughter shall not exceed 30 nor be less than 2 years' imprisonment. This provision necessarily implies that the trial judge is to exercise a discretion in imposing sentences. Therefore any reasonable means by which his mind can be enlightened should not be prohibited to him. Hence the question arises, was the reception of the affidavits objected to by the defendant a reasonable and proper means? That it was, we think, is now well settled by the authorities. At a very early date the English courts refused to permit such procedure (Rex v. Ellis, 9 Doul. & R. 174); but in the later English practice the admission of affidavits in aggravation or mitigation seems not to have been questioned (Rex v. Bunts, 2 T. R. 683; Reg. v. Digmam, 34 E. C. L...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT