State v. Williamson
| Decision Date | 31 January 1921 |
| Docket Number | 10555. |
| Citation | 105 S.E. 697,115 S.C. 315 |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAMSON. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Bamberg County Charles Carroll Simms, Special Judge.
R. O Williamson was convicted of murder, and he appeals. New trial.
James E. Davis, of Barnwell, and Dunlap & Dunlap, of Rock Hill, for appellant.
R. L Gunter, Sol., of Aiken, and Carter, Carter & Kearse, of Bamberg, for the State.
The defendant was tried at a special term of court for Bamberg county in 1920, the indictment being for murder, and convicted of manslaughter, and duly sentenced by Hon. Chas. Carroll Simms, special judge, and appeals and by five exceptions alleges error.
The first exception is:
"The court erred in forcing the defendant to trial in the absence of Mrs. Williamson, the most material witness in the case on behalf of defendant, and that the ruling that her affidavit on the motion for trial was sufficient to protect the rights of the defendant."
The case had been continued at previous term of court, but was not on motion of defendant, so for all purposes, practically it was the first time that the case had been called for trial.
It is an uncontroverted fact that Mrs. Williamson was far advanced in pregnancy, and, according to the affidavit of her family physician, Dr. Fender, her attendance upon the trial might operate seriously upon her, and he gave as his opinion that it would be dangerous for her, in her condition, to attend this trial wherein she would have to testify. It is admitted that Mrs. Williamson was a most important witness for her husband; the killing of Bradham having occurred on account of alleged opprobrious language used to her by him a few days before the killing, this being the inception of the difficulty which led to the killing, and she was present and witnessed the homicide.
Ordinarily a person tried for a capital felony has a right to have his wife present at the trial, and the wife has the right to be present. In the instant case the wife could not be present by reason of physical incapacity. She was the most material witness her husband had. In a measure, she was the prime cause that led up to the difficulty that ended in the killing. She was present and witnessed the killing. She knew as much, if not more, about it than any one else, from its inception to its end.
Mrs Burnett was alleged to quote Mrs. Williamson by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McDonald
... ... wife and his mother, were sworn on behalf of the defense, ... some from McCormick county and some from Fairfield county, ... and their testimony was directed in each instance toward ... establishing proof of the defendant's insanity ... The ... case of State v. Williamson, 115 S.C. 315, 105 S.E ... 697, cited by the appellant, is not in point. In that case it ... was held that it was an abuse of discretion on the part of ... the presiding judge not to grant a continuance because of the ... absence of the defendant's wife, where it appeared that ... she was ... ...
-
State v. Mishoe
... ... trial and when giving her testimony was in our judgment in no ... wise prejudicial to the defendants but is more likely to have ... been favorable to them ... We are ... in full accord with the law as declared by this Court in the ... case of State v. Williamson, 115 S.C. 315, 105 S.E ... 697, in which the opinion was delivered by Mr. Justice Watts ... (who was ever zealous to protect the rights of defendants), ... to the effect that ordinarily a defendant being tried for a ... capital felony has the right to have his [198 S.C. 220] wife ... present ... ...
-
State v. Anderson
...is warranted, but it will readily be seen that in overruling these exceptions, we have not even modified the holding in the case of State v. Williamson, supra, upon by appellants. Exceptions 1, 5, and 6 are overruled. There is nothing in the record from which the court could have assumed th......