State v. Wyse

• Decision Date: 15 January 1890
• Citation: 10 S.E. 612,32 S.C. 45
• Parties: STATE v. WYSE.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

10 S.E. 612

32 S.C. 45

STATE v. WYSE.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 15, 1890

The charge referred to in the opinion is as follows:

"It is contended in this case, first, that, when all the circumstances of the case are before the jury, the state must prove malice in order to make it a question of malice. My charge to you on that point is that when one man willfully inflicts, with a deadly weapon, a wound upon another, which is fatal, the law implies that it was done maliciously, and holds him responsible for having done it maliciously; and, if the circumstances of the case show that it was done while the parties were quarreling,--were angry with each other,--then the state by proving that does prove malice, unless those same circumstances show that it was a case of manslaughter by the blow having been inflicted in sudden heat and passion after sufficient provocation, or the blow having been inflicted in self-defense, when he had reason to believe that if he didn't do it either his own life was in danger, or that he was in jeopardy of receiving serious bodily injury. Now, if they were quarreling, and that was done in the quarrel, it is murder, unless the circumstances make out a case of manslaughter, or a case of self-defense. That is my charge to you on the law. I am responsible for that. If I err, his life is in no danger, because there is a court which overrules what I do, when I err in law. I charge you that is the law, upon which there is not a shadow of doubt, well settled for centuries. Now, gentlemen, it is admitted that this prisoner inflicted the blow with a knife, and the physician testified that that blow caused lock-jaw, which resulted in death. So, then, he is guilty of murder, having done it in anger, when they were quarreling, and the damn lie having passed between them; he is guilty of murder, unless it is a case of manslaughter. Well, that is not contended for. The defense does not claim it is a case of manslaughter. In order to make out a case of manslaughter, the blow must have been inflicted in sudden heat and passion, after sufficient provocation, and no words are recognized in law as sufficient provocation; it must have been a blow, or something equivalent to a blow, in order to make it a case of manslaughter.

"Then, is it a case of self-defense? The only witness you have in all the case that lays any foundation whatever for its being self-defense is the defendant himself. He is the only person who testifies to any facts whatever that point towards self-defense. It is claimed that, in order to determine the value of his testimony and what occurred at that time, you must consider all the circumstances of the case. You heard my ruling, that what previously occurred in the street had nothing to do with the case in so far as justification for this act was concerned, but it would bear upon the question of what the defendant had a right to expect when this quarrel was renewed in the store; it would bear upon that. So, in considering now whether he believed he was in danger, or whether the circumstances justified his believing that he was in danger, or would justify a man of reasonable firmness and coolness in believing he was in danger,--in considering that point, you will consider all the circumstances as proved by the testimony.

"Now, what weight will you give to what he says? It is claimed, when he says that he saw the deceased try to draw a knife, that that matter is not contradicted by any number of witnesses who will say that he didn't see it. Well, that is the general rule of law; but the general rule of law is this: that if the witnesses who were present testify to you in such manner as to induce you to believe that they must have seen all that occurred, then their testimony will contradict that of the other person who says that he saw so and so; because, gentlemen, if the circumstances of the case added to their testimony, contradict his testimony, then his testimony is contradicted. Now, what circumstances are you to consider in connection with this matter of drawing a knife? What circumstances are you to consider, in addition to that of the other witnesses whose testimony you have heard, about there being no knife? The moment he struck the blow, he ran. Did he do any act or say anything then, while the matter was present, to lead the other witnesses to a knowledge of the fact that a knife was being drawn upon him? Did he at that time say a word to justify himself for that blow? You are to consider that. What other circumstances? He ran, but his blow did not disable the deceased man at that time. No witness says that he fell; that he became disabled. If he did have a knife, was there any attempt to use it after he was cut? It is for you to weigh it as sensible men,--to weigh the fact as sensible men,--if he was drawing a knife, or making a motion to draw a knife, would he not have followed it up after he received the cut? But what else? Not only does it appear he didn't intend to use any knife, but he ran for a weight and picked the weight up. Now, what hand would he be likely to pick it up with? Would he do it with his right hand or not? If he did it with his right hand, didn't that give an opportunity for everybody to see the knife? Did the knife drop? What became of it? All these matters you must weigh and although it is the rule of evidence that what

another man didn't see does not contradict what a credible witness says he did see, still, if what those others swear to are inconsistent with the facts he swears to, that does contradict him. Furthermore, gentlemen, this rule of law was made as applicable to a disinterested witness. Now, in weighing the testimony of this man as to the deceased about to draw a knife on him,--or his supposing so,--you are bound to consider the situation in which he testifies; you are bound to weigh it. He is being tried for his life. Well Satan once said to the Almighty, when the Son of God appeared before him, in talking about Job, after Job had all his property and all his children taken from him, Satan told one truth: 'All that a man hath will he give for his life.' Is it true or not? It is for you. I say Satan told what is generally recognized as a truth, but you must judge whether true or not. Is it true that all that a man hath will he give for his life? If, then, one whose life is in danger will give all he has to save it, or will give much that he has to save it, or will give much that he has to save it, it is for you to say what pressure there was on the mind of this witness, when he testified, to depart from the truth. That it is a matter for you to weigh. If, then, in weighing that testimony, and in making such allowance for his testimony as you are bound to make under the circumstances of the case, then what proof is there before you that this blow was inflicted in self-defense?

"Well, now, begin with the policeman. He says that these persons were quarreling in the street; that they were quarreling with and cursing each other; that he interfered and stopped them more than once. Does he say a word about having seen a knife in any of those quarrels? He says, finally, when he interfered for the last time and stopped them, he told the defendant to go away, and the defendant replied, 'Well, now, I am done with it, ' and did go away; that the deceased stopped behind, and afterwards he went on down the street in the direction of this store; that he saw the deceased was following him; that he then warned the deceased not to follow the party, or they would get into a fight; but he says nothing about their having attempted to fight, either by weapon or otherwise, at any time he saw them. Simply, they were quarreling with and cursing each other; but he does not say a word about their having offered to fight each other with a deadly weapon of any sort. Now, those are the circumstances of the case testified to by him, previous to going in that store; and, despite his warning that if Willis, the deceased, would go in that store, they would get in a difficulty, and one or the other get hurt, he did go in. Now, what happened after he went in? Well, gentlemen, all that you and I know about it is what the witnesses say, and it is for you to say how far they have told the truth.

"Willie Strother says that defendant came in first. That after he came in he says to him, 'Are you a friend to Willis Stork?' 'I told him, "Yes."' He says: 'He then replied, "If he comes in here tonight, I will cut his throat."' That is what he says; and that he went on cursing and talking about some money matter in which Stork had behaved badly about. That while this talk was going on Stork came in at the side door, and walked in, and walked around, and went up to where the defendant was sitting, and said to him, 'What are you talking about me for?' and from that they got to cursing each other. That his attention just at that time was directed some other way, so he didn't see the blow struck, but he saw the effect of it immediately after it was done,--that the defendant had cut him,--and Willis Stork so called out.

"The next witness, Dukes, says pretty much the same thing. He says he was in the store. That the defendant came in first, and asked him whether he was a friend of Willis Stork. He says: 'I told him, "Yes;" and when I told him that I thought he meant, was I a friend to Willie Strother.' Then he went on, he says, cursing about Stork, who came in soon after, and they got to quarreling.

...