State v. Wilson, (No. 10550.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtGARY
Citation105 S.E. 341
PartiesSTATE. v. WILSON.
Decision Date20 December 1920
Docket Number(No. 10550.)

105 S.E. 341

STATE.
v.
WILSON.

(No. 10550.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Dec. 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

[105 S.E. 342]

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,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • State v. Belcher, No. 26729.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 12 October 2009
    ...are all overruled, being without merit." Id. at 295, 103 S.E. at 561. The second case from 1920 is State v. Wilson, 115 S.C. 248, 105 S.E. 341 (1920). Wilson claimed the killing was accidental but was convicted of murder. The jury was charged that "[m]alice may be implied from the intention......
  • State v. Lyles, No. 15920.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 28 February 1947
    ...charge on accidental killing where he did not present a request to charge embodying that phase of the case, State v. Wilson, 115 S.C. 248, 105 S.E. 341.[41 S.E.2d 628] Exception 4 relates to the alleged failure of the trial Judge to define the phrase "preponderance of the evidence". The Cou......
  • Smith v. State, No. 25122.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 17 December 1926
    ...N. E. 632;Webb v. State (1919) 149 Ga. 211, 99 S. E. 630;State v. Ray (Mo. Sup. 1920) 225 S. W. 969;State v. Wilson (1920) 115 S. C. 248, 105 S. E. 341;People v. White (1907) 5 Cal. App. 329, 90 P. 471;People v. Bolik (1909) 241 Ill. 394, 89 N. E. 700;Steers v. United States (C. C. A. 1911)......
  • State v. Riley, No. 16480
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 20 March 1951
    ...considered in its entirety in determining whether or not any particular portion thereof was erroneous. State v. Wilson, 115 S.C. 248, 249, 105 S.E. 341; State v. Burnett, 210 S.C. 348, 42 S.E.2d The entire paragraph from which the portion complained of was taken appears as follows: 'That is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • State v. Belcher, No. 26729.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 12 October 2009
    ...are all overruled, being without merit." Id. at 295, 103 S.E. at 561. The second case from 1920 is State v. Wilson, 115 S.C. 248, 105 S.E. 341 (1920). Wilson claimed the killing was accidental but was convicted of murder. The jury was charged that "[m]alice may be implied from the intention......
  • State v. Lyles, No. 15920.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 28 February 1947
    ...charge on accidental killing where he did not present a request to charge embodying that phase of the case, State v. Wilson, 115 S.C. 248, 105 S.E. 341.[41 S.E.2d 628] Exception 4 relates to the alleged failure of the trial Judge to define the phrase "preponderance of the evidence". The Cou......
  • Smith v. State, No. 25122.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 17 December 1926
    ...N. E. 632;Webb v. State (1919) 149 Ga. 211, 99 S. E. 630;State v. Ray (Mo. Sup. 1920) 225 S. W. 969;State v. Wilson (1920) 115 S. C. 248, 105 S. E. 341;People v. White (1907) 5 Cal. App. 329, 90 P. 471;People v. Bolik (1909) 241 Ill. 394, 89 N. E. 700;Steers v. United States (C. C. A. 1911)......
  • State v. Riley, No. 16480
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 20 March 1951
    ...considered in its entirety in determining whether or not any particular portion thereof was erroneous. State v. Wilson, 115 S.C. 248, 249, 105 S.E. 341; State v. Burnett, 210 S.C. 348, 42 S.E.2d The entire paragraph from which the portion complained of was taken appears as follows: 'That is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT