State v. Reeder

• Decision Date: 21 February 1908
• Citation: 60 S.E. 434,79 S.C. 139
• Parties: STATE v. REEDER.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

60 S.E. 434

79 S.C. 139

STATE v. REEDER.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 21, 1908

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 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. 316; Reg. v Sutton, 34 E. C. L. 166). The American cases lay down the principle that, where it devolves upon the court to determine the punishment either upon the finding or upon the plea of guilty, it is the correct practice for it to hear evidence in aggravation or mitigation, as the case may be, where there is any discretion as to the punishment. Kistler v. State, 54 Ind. 400; People v. Vermilyea, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 108; People v. Bork, 96 N.Y. 188. It has likewise been held that evidence of the moral character of the accused is competent to guide the court in determining the punishment to be imposed. State v. Summers, 98 N.C. 702, 4 S.E. 120.

Our own case of State v. Smith, 2 Bay, 62, very clearly recognizes the rule that such affidavits are admissible. In that case the defendants offered to give in evidence to the jury a variety of extenuating circumstances. The presiding...