State v. Trezevant
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | SIMPSON. |
| Citation | 20 S.C. 363 |
| Parties | STATE v. TREZEVANT. |
| Decision Date | 15 January 1884 |
20 S.C. 363
STATE
v.
TREZEVANT.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jan. 15th, 1884.
1. The failure of the Circuit judge to ask a prisoner convicted of murder, “If he has anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced on him,” is error, and requires a resentence, although the prisoner did not demand that this question should be asked.
2. But as this error affected the sentence only, the prisoner is not entitled to a new trial, but must be resentenced after being so asked.a1
Before WALLACE, J., Orangeburg, May, 1883.
This was an indictment against William Trezevant for murder The opinion states the case.
Mr. Andrew C. Dibble, for appellant.
Mr. Solicitor Jervey, contra.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SIMPSON.The defendant was tried and convicted of murder at the May Term, 1883, in the Court of Sessions for Orangeburg county. When called for sentence, the question “whether he had anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced on him,” was omitted. The appeal assigns error on account of this omission.
There is no doubt that in capital cases the practice of asking this question before sentence has been universally recognized and followed in this State from the earliest period of our judicial history. State v. Washington, 1 Bay 155. And it seems that it has been the practice, not simply because it was formal and seemly, but because of legal requirement founded upon wise consideration, and, therefore, necessary and indispensable. Mr. Archbold (1 Cr. Pr. & Pl. 676) says, that in capital cases, before judgment is pronounced upon the defendant, it is indispensably
[20 S.C. 364]
necessary that he should be asked “if he has anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced on him,” referring to 1 Chitty Crim. L. 700; West v. State, 2 Zabr. 212, and Grady v. State, 11 Geo. 253; and, also, that this should appear upon the record to have been done. 3 Salk. 358; Mill. Comp. 157; 3 Mod. 265.
This is necessary, because, on this occasion, the defendant may allege any ground in arrest of judgment, or he may plead a pardon, &c. 4 Bl. Com. 376. He further says, that the omission to do this in cases of minor felonies is not a sufficient ground for reversing the judgment, provided it appears that the prisoner and his counsel were both in court when the sentence is pronounced, and urge nothing against the judgment or in mitigation of the defendant's guilt. Grady v. State, 11 Geo. 253. The same doctrine is found in 1 Bish. Cr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stokes, No. 25298.
...to say why sentence and judgment should not be pronounced." State v. Phillips, 215 S.C. 314, 54 S.E.2d 901 (1949); State v. Trezevant, 20 S.C. 363, (1884); see also BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 40 (5 th Ed. 1979) (defining "allocution" as "formality of court's inquiry of prisoner as to whether he......
-
State v. Holmes, No. 24351
...objection, and without reliance on the doctrine of in favorem vitae. State v. Jefcoat, 20 S.C. 383 (1884); State v. Trezevant, 20 S.C. 363 (1884); see also State v. Washington, 1 S.C.Law (1 Bay 120) 49 (1791). In Trezevant we indicated that allocution was "indispensably necessary" to imposi......
-
McGinn v. State, 6854
...Commonwealth, 5 Cush. [Mass.], 407; Chitty, Criminal Law, 722; Dodge v. People, 4 Neb. 226; In re Jones, 35 Neb. 499; State v. Treszevant, 20 S.C. 363; State v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 542.) In Kinsler v. Territory, 1 Wyo. Ter., 112, the prisoner was sentenced to be hanged. On the day following the ......
-
State v. Gregory, No. 15312.
...than that contained in the sentence from which he has appealed. This course is not without precedent in this Court. State v. Trezevant, 20 S.C. 363, 47 Am.Rep. 840; State v. Jefcoat, 20 S.C. 383; State v. Baker, 58 S.C. 111, 36 S.E. 501; State v. Durham, 89 S.C. 134, 71 S.E. 847; State v. G......
-
State v. Stokes, No. 25298.
...to say why sentence and judgment should not be pronounced." State v. Phillips, 215 S.C. 314, 54 S.E.2d 901 (1949); State v. Trezevant, 20 S.C. 363, (1884); see also BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 40 (5 th Ed. 1979) (defining "allocution" as "formality of court's inquiry of prisoner as to whether he......
-
State v. Holmes, No. 24351
...objection, and without reliance on the doctrine of in favorem vitae. State v. Jefcoat, 20 S.C. 383 (1884); State v. Trezevant, 20 S.C. 363 (1884); see also State v. Washington, 1 S.C.Law (1 Bay 120) 49 (1791). In Trezevant we indicated that allocution was "indispensably necessary" to imposi......
-
McGinn v. State, 6854
...Commonwealth, 5 Cush. [Mass.], 407; Chitty, Criminal Law, 722; Dodge v. People, 4 Neb. 226; In re Jones, 35 Neb. 499; State v. Treszevant, 20 S.C. 363; State v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 542.) In Kinsler v. Territory, 1 Wyo. Ter., 112, the prisoner was sentenced to be hanged. On the day following the ......
-
State v. Gregory, No. 15312.
...than that contained in the sentence from which he has appealed. This course is not without precedent in this Court. State v. Trezevant, 20 S.C. 363, 47 Am.Rep. 840; State v. Jefcoat, 20 S.C. 383; State v. Baker, 58 S.C. 111, 36 S.E. 501; State v. Durham, 89 S.C. 134, 71 S.E. 847; State v. G......