State v. Wright
| Decision Date | 05 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 17094,17094 |
| Citation | 90 S.E.2d 492,228 S.C. 432 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Samuel WRIGHT, Appellant. |
S. Morgan, Orangeburg, for appellant.
Julian S. Wolfe, Solicitor, Orangeburg, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted of the axe-murder of Mrs. Mary Lee Stroman which occurred in her Orangeburg home on the night of February 26, 1955. Her husband, sitting with her viewing television, was seriously wounded at the same time.
Appellant's grandmother was the longtime house servant of the Stromans and lived in a garage apartment in the yard of their home. She testified for the State that appellant, who was twenty years old and finished the sixth grade in school, visited her in her apartment on the night of the tragedy and tried to borrow money, which she refused to lend him. At about halfpast seven o'clock on the next morning she entered the kitchen of the home and began the preparation of breakfast when she heard Mr. Stroman's groans and call. She then went into the room where Mrs. Stroman was in a chair dead, and Mr. Stroman was lying on the floor. At his instruction she called the police who came promptly. In answer to her question Mr. Stroman told her that a Negro with an axe had beaten him up and killed his wife.
The appellant was apprehended by the officers about thirty-five miles from Orangeburg on the evening of February 28 and taken to the city police station where he admitted the crime in the presence of several officers. He directed them to a vacant lot about seven-tenths of a mile from the Stroman home where he had secreted a pocketbook and papers which were taken from Mr. Stroman; and he accompanied the officers to the hiding place where the articles were found where he had said they were. On the next morning appellant was taken to the office of the State Law Enforcement Division where he repeated his confession which was taken in shorthand by a stenographer, typed in duplicate, signed by appellant in the presence of a Notary Public and in the presence of an Orangeburg County Deputy Sheriff, a City police officer and two State officers, all of whom signed as witnesses. Appellant also signed an appended certificate that he had read the statement and was given a copy. It was to the effect that he obtained his grandmother's key with which he unlocked the door to the Stroman home, obtained an axe from the garage, went in the house and struck Mr. Stroman with it, then Mrs. Stroman, took Mr. Stroman's pocketbook and papers, removed the money and after he had left the house and disposed of the pocketbook and papers, he bought some beer and bootleg whisky nearby, went back to the house, cut the television off, went upstairs and looked into drawers, returned downstairs and his the safe with the axe in an effort to open it. He obtained about $30 from the pocketbook.
All of the officers who were present and witnessed the written confession testified, were examined and cross-examined at length and were clear and convincing in their testimony that the confession was free and voluntary and that appellant was informed as to his rights thereabout, which was uncontradicted; there was not even lengthy questioning by the officers. However the jury were instructed that before consideration of the confession as evidence they must determine that the State had established beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in fact free and voluntary. State v. Sanders, 227 S.C. 287, 87 S.E.2d 826. The circumstantial evidence which has been mentioned corroborated the confession; and the medical evidence was that death resulted from a very severe head wound which could have been caused by the back or blunt side of the blade of an axe. The blood-stained axe was found in a closet of the home.
Notice of appeal was not given within ten days of the rising of the court as required by Sec. 7-405 of the Code of 1952, which was necessary to give this court jurisdiction of the attempted appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. 3 West's S. C. Digest, Appeal and Error, k425-430, p. 396 et seq. However, there was timely notice of appeal from order refusing new trial upon the ground of alleged after-discovered evidence which has occasioned review of the trial record, in which the State has generously assisted by providing printed transcript of all the proceedings in the lower court; and no right was lost by appellant on account of the failure of his counsel to appeal from his conviction and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mayfield
...and (5) is not merely cumulative or impeaching. State v. Strickland, 201 S.C. 170, 22 S.E.2d 417; State v. Clamp, supra; State v. Wright, 228 S.C. 432, 90 S.E.2d 492. Exhibit 1 relates to matters obviously known to appellant before and during the trial. Bullock's affidavit (Exhibit 2) is at......
-
State v. Swilling
...(2d), Criminal Law, Section 426; State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395, 111 S.E.2d 669; State v. Byrd, 229 S.C. 593, 93 S.E.2d 900; State v. Wright, 228 S.C. 432, 90 S.E.2d 492; State v. Whitener, 228 S.C. 244, 89 S.E.2d There is a total absence of any showing of prejudice resulting from the pretria......
-
State v. South
...a new trial will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Caskey, 273 S.C. 325, 256 S.E.2d 737 (1979); State v. Wright, 228 S.C. 432, 90 S.E.2d 492 (1955). To obtain a new trial based on after-discovered evidence, the party must show that the (1) would probably change the res......
-
State v. Wells
...(5) is not merely cumulative or impeaching. State v. Strickland, 201 S.C. 170, 22 S.E. (2d) 417; State v. Clamp, supra; State v. Wright, 228 S.C. 432, 90 S.E. (2d) 492.' 'After careful consideration of this motion, and the supporting affidavit of affiant Eitel, it is the opinion of this cou......