State v. Sparks

• Decision Date: 10 February 1936
• Docket Number: 14220.
• Citation: State v. Sparks, 179 S.C. 135, 183 S.E. 719 (S.C. 1936)
• Parties: STATE v. SPARKS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

183 S.E. 719

179 S.C. 135

STATE v. SPARKS.

No. 14220.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 10, 1936

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

J. C. Sparks was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

L. G Southard and John C. Williams, both of Spartanburg, and H. R Swink, of of Gaffney, for appellant.

S. R Watt, of Spartanburg, and G. W. Speer, of Gaffney, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was tried under an indictment charging him with the murder of one Guy Clary. In addition to his plea of not guilty, he relied upon the law of selfdefense and of the defense of the habitation and of his place of business. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years.

As there must be a new trial, we will not review the testimony at length.

The record discloses that on Sunday evening or night, July 22, 1934, the deceased and four companions went to the home of the defendant about seven miles west of Gaffney. A small part of the dwelling house was used as a storeroom. Sparks testified that these men were drunk or under the influence of whisky, but that he invited some of them in, and that Guy Clary and two others entered the kitchen, that he sold them beer, and that one of them, Smith, sat down at a table to drink his, but that the other two went into the bedroom of the wife of the witness and sat on her bed. It is agreed on all hands that then or immediately thereafter the defendant ordered all of them to leave the house, but that the deceased, Guy Clary, did not do so. As to what occurred after that, the evidence is not in agreement. Sparks stated that Guy made a move as if to draw a pistol, and that "I shot him when I thought he was going to kill me." The testimony, however, adduced by the state on that point, and as to the general attitude of the deceased, was in conflict with that offered for the defense, which made an issue of fact for the jury as to how the killing occurred. The motion, therefore, for a directed verdict was properly overruled.

The assignment of error as to the court's charge, however must be sustained. As we have stated, while Clary, the deceased, was invited by the defendant into his home, he was subsequently ordered by Sparks to leave the dwelling, which he failed and refused to do. He thereupon became a trespasser, and in such case the law permits the...