State v. Wideman

• Decision Date: 17 July 1918
• Docket Number: (No. 10030.)
• Parties: STATE. v. WIDEMAN.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

96 S.E. 688

STATE.

v.WIDEMAN.

(No. 10030.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 17, 1918.

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Abbeville County; John S. Wilson, Judge.

Johnny Wideman was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Sam Adams, of Abbeville, for appellant.

H. S. Blackwell, of Laurens, for the State.

HYDRICK, J. Appellant was tried for the murder of Robert Belcher, also called Robert Jenkins. He was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The homicide was committed at "a hot supper, " at the house of Maria Dawson. Defendant pleaded "Not guilty, " and sought to prove an alibi, by proving that he was in the house, when deceased was shot on the outside. The solicitor admitted that one of defendant's witnesses, who was absent at the trial, would have testified, if he had been present, that he saw John Allen shoot deceased.

The said John Allen was one of the state's witnesses, and testified that he was in the house, and heard a gunshot on the outside: that immediately afterwards deceased ran into the house, where there was a crowd of people, and, on being asked by some one what was the matter, said John Allen shot him; that he walked up to him and said: "Boy, what did you say? You say I shot you?" And he then said: "I don't mean you. John Wideman shot me." Defendant's attorney objected to the testimony on the ground that the alleged statement of deceased was not a dying declaration. But the court admitted it, as part of the res gestæ. On cross-examination, the witness admitted that he and deceased had at some time previously had a fight.

John Lewis Du Bose testified as a witness for the state. At the conclusion of his direct examination, in response to a question from the solicitor, he said that he had no interest in the case. On cross-examination, he testified that the defendant, Wideman, lived on Mr. Clinkscales' place, and that he (witness) had lived there for two years, but was not living there then. Defendant's attorney (Mr. Clinkscales) sought to show bias on the part of the witness by eliciting from him, on cross-examination, that he had been run off the place "on account of some work or disagreement." On objection by the solicitor, the court excluded the testimony saying: "I think you are going too far."

Lemmie Smith, a sister of deceased, testified for the state that she saw deceased about midday on Sunday, after the doctor had told him that he could not live, and he told her that he was shot to death, and that "Will Wideman" shot him. Q. Will Wideman? A. Yes, sir. Q. It that the defendant here? A. Yes, sir. Q. He says he is Johnny Wideman? A. Well, he is the one. He told me that Johnny Wideman shot him. I am a stranger up there."

Dr. C. C. Gambrell testified for the state that he attended deceased; that he made satisfactory progress toward recovery, until the ninth day after he was shot, up to which time he thought he would get well, and deceased thought so, too; but, when he saw him on the ninth day, which was about midday Sunday, preceding the night on which he died, he saw that tetanus was developing, and that he was getting rigid, his head was drawn back, and his throat was becoming paralyzed, so that he could not swallow; that he (hen told deceased that he would not get well, and, he said, "Yes, Doctor, I know I am not going to get well, ", and, after saying so, deceased told him that John Wideman shot him.

Three witnesses for the state testified that they were present and saw defendant shoot deceased. Three witnesses for defendant testified that they saw him in the house dancing at the time the shot was fired, and that he could not have shot deceased.

[1, 21 The first assignment of error is in admitting the testimony of John Allen, above set out, under the res gestæ rule. Appellant concedes that his testimony was competent under that rule, in so far as he testified that deceased said that John Allen had shot him but contends that, when his statement was challenged by John Allen, his modification of it, and the further declaration that he meant to say that John Wideman shot him, was incompetent, because it appeared from the circumstances that the latter part of the statement was not the spontaneous utterance of his mind made so nearly under the immediate influence of the transaction as to preclude the idea that it was the result of reflection, or design; but that, on the contrary, the circumstances showed that it was an afterthought and the result of reflection, influenced by the presence and...