State v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 20 December 1920
• Docket Number: 10550.
• Citation: 105 S.E. 341,115 S.C. 248
• Parties: STATE v. WILSON.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

105 S.E. 341

115 S.C. 248

STATE v. WILSON.

No. 10550.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 20, 1920

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Richland County.

Albert Wilson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, and he appeals. Affirmed.

B. J Wingard, of Columbia, and J. Brooks Wingard, of Lexington for appellant.

A. F Spigner, Sol., and C. T. Smith, Jr., both of Columbia, for the State.

GARY C.J.

The defendant was indicted for the murder of B. B. Butler, and the jury rendered a verdict of guilty. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was refused; and the sentence of death by electrocution was imposed upon him, from which he appealed.

The first, second, and third exceptions will be considered together, and are as follows:

(1) " 'Malice' is a term of art, importing wickedness"--the error being that the court should have added to this the words "and excluding a just cause or excuse."

(2) "Malice may be implied from the intentional use of a deadly weapon"--the error being the omission of the qualifying words "without just cause or excuse."

(3) " 'Manslaughter' is the unlawful and felonious killing of a human being without malice"--the error being in failing to add "from sudden heat and passion upon sufficient legal provocation."

His honor, the presiding judge, delivered a full, clear, and able charge, which must be considered in its entirety, in determining whether any particular portion thereof was erroneous.

In addition to the language quoted in these exceptions, he also charged:

" Now, 'malice' is a term of art importing wickedness. It is the deliberate, intentional doing of an act which the person acting knows to be wrong, and in violation of a duty to another, where one consciously and intentionally violated the law, and where he acts with deliberation in so doing. Malice need not be in the mind of the party so acting for any particular length of time before the act, but if it is present in the mind of the party for any length of time before the act, and if, at the time, it prompts and inspires the act, then its presence is sufficient to render the killing of a human being murder.

'Express malice' is where one kills another, where the malice is evidenced and proved by previous threats, old grudges, lying in wait, or by words showing an evil intent to do the act. That is one way in which malice may be shown. And malice is implied from any deliberate, cruel act committed by one person against another. It is presumed or implied from the intentional doing of an unlawful act without excuse or without just cause. It may also be implied from an intentional use of a deadly weapon. These presumptions however, are rebuttable. It has been held that where the act which produces death is attended with such circumstances as indicate a wicked, depraved, or malignant spirit, the law will imply malice, and the law implies malice where a defendant intentionally, deliberately kills a person, and where no other fact in reference to the transaction is known. But where all the facts surrounding the transaction come out before the jury, then it is for the jury to say whether or not the killing was prompted by malice. So it is a question of fact for the jury to determine in every case whether or not the killing was prompted by malice, which would make it murder, or was without malice, which, if it was unlawful, would make it manslaughter, or whether the guilt of a defendant of either murder or manslaughter has been proved to their satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, manslaughter, as I stated awhile ago, is an unlawful killing without malice, in sudden heat and passion aroused by a legal

...