State v. Turner
| Decision Date | 10 October 1921 |
| Docket Number | 10732. |
| Parties | STATE v. TURNER ET AL. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Marion County; George E. Prince, Judge.
Archie Turner and Mack Turner were convicted of murder, and they appeal. New trial.
W. B Norton, of Mullins, and A. F. Woods and W. F. Stackhouse both of Marion, for appellants.
L. M Gasque, of Marion, and Bullard & Stringfield, of Fayetteville, N. C., for the State.
The appellants were indicted along with Thomas Turner for the murder of Edwin White, and tried before Judge Prince and a jury. At the close of state's evidence a motion was made for a directed verdict in favor of defendants, and refused. At the close of all the evidence in the case a similar motion was made and granted by his honor as to Thomas Turner, and refused as to Archie Turner and Mack Turner; they were convicted by the jury of murder with a recommendation to mercy and sentenced; thereupon they appeal.
We will consider the exceptions of Mack Turner, as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. It must be borne in mind that Mack Turner is convicted and was tried for the killing of Edward White, not that of accessory after the fact of the killing. A careful, diligent, and close investigation of the evidence warrants us in concluding that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict of guilty as to him. Neither the evidence nor the circumstances warrant his conviction; while the whole case raised a suspicion, and a grave one at that, it does not warrant a verdict of guilty. The state failed to connect him with the actual killing, or that he was present aiding and abetting at the time of the killing, or that he had anything to do with it at all, until after the killing occurred, and his conduct after the homicide cannot convict him of an offense that the state failed to prove. Admitting as true every fact and circumstance relied on by the state to be true, without reference to whether it was competent or not, there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the conviction of Mack Turner, and his honor was in error in not directing a verdict of not guilty as to him.
There was sufficient evidence to go to the jury as to Archie Turner, and his honor committed no error in submitting his case to the jury for their determination, and the exceptions, alleging error on the part of his honor in not directing a verdict of not guilty, are overruled.
Exceptions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 complain of error in admitting in evidence the oral and written statements of defendant designated as "confessions." The state did not offer them as confessions, but as declarations of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Epes
...137 S.C. 75, 134 S.E. 514; State v. Knight, 118 S.C. 99, 109 S.E. 803; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 730, page 1243. In State v. Turner, 117 S.C. 470, 109 S.E. 119, 120, homicide case, it was held that the corpus delicti was not proved and that the trial judge erred in not directing a verdict ......
-
Lusk v. State Highway Dept.
... ... Exceptions 3 and 4 are sustained ... As ... authority for sustaining exception 2, and especially ... exceptions 3 and 4, see cases of Latimer v. General ... Electric Co., 81 S.C. 374, 62 S.E. 438; State v ... Bright, 89 S.C. 228, 71 S.E. 821; State v ... Turner, 117 S.C. 470, 109 S.E. 119; State v ... Barfield, 128 S.C. 384, 122 S.E. 856; Sumter Trust ... Co. et al. v. Holman, 134 S.C. 412, 132 S.E. 811; ... Enlee v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 110 S.C. 137, 96 ... S.E. 490, and Lorick & Lowrance v. Walker & Co., 147 ... S.C. 178, 145 S.E. 33, ... ...
-
Sims v. Camp Creek School Dist. No. 15 of Lancaster County
... ... days after the demurrer was consented to in the first case ... That demurrer was that the complaint did not state facts ... sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in that the deed ... sued on did not contain a forfeiting clause in the event the ... ...
-
State v. Smith
...drawn therefrom, must be viewed in the most favorable light for the state. State v. Brown, 205 S.C. 514, 32 S.E.2d 825; State v. Turner, 117 S.C. 470, 109 S.E. 119; State v. Quinn, 111 S.C. 174, 97 S.E. 62, 3 A.L.R. 1500; State v. Epes, 209 S.C. 246, S.E.2d 769. Considering the evidence in ......