Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922

State v. Davis

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided July 5, 1922 · Cothran

113 S.E. 491; 121 S.C. 350; 1922 S.C. LEXIS 186 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messers. Robt. B. Scarborough and Cordie Page , for appellant, cite: Testimony of statements of third party, not in presence of accused, not admissible: 94 S.C. 214 ; 82 S.C. 388 ; 106 S.C. 392 ; 94 S.C. 439 ; 80 S.C. 352 ; 83 S.C. 34 ; Self defense: 13 S.C. 464 ; 112 S.C. 100 ; 32 S.C. 44 ; 33 S.C. 595 ; 33 S.C. 600 ; 35 S.C. 290 ; 66 S.C. 452 ; 68 S.C. 137 ; 73 S.C. 278 ; 112 S.C. 95 ; 75 S.C. 510 ; 91 S.C. 235 ; 49 S.C. 488 ; 103 S.C. 316 ; 29 S.C. 236 ; 2 R.C.L., 550. Burden of Proving innocence put on defendant: 103 S.C. 316 ; 91 S.C. 235 ; 68 S.C. 304 . Mr. L.M. Gasque, Solicitor , for respondent, Cites: Testimony of Statements which form part of transaction are admissible: 13 S.C. 459 ; 68 S.C. 303 ; 68 S.C. 276 ; 103 S.C. 278 ; Attention of Court should have been called to objectionable charge: 64 S.C. 311 .

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

Appeal from a conviction of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. The exceptions will be reported.

The First Exception. This exception cannot be sustained, for the reason that it does not appear from the record that the grounds of objection were specified.

The Second'Exception. All that the Circuit Judge meant to say was that the plea of self-defense is based upon necessity. That necessity may be real or apparent to the defendant; if the defendant desired a fuller statement of the law, he should have made a request thérefor.

The Third Exception. The Circuit Judge did ho more than charge the well-established principle that, before a defendant can successfully interpose the plea of self-defense, he must show, as one of the elements of that plea, that he was not at fault in bringing on the difficulty, and that the use of language reasonably calculated to provoke personal encounter deprives the defendant of the plea.

The Fourth Exception. The charge is sustained by the case of State v. Abercrombie, 114 S. C., 241; 103 S. E., 524.

The Fifth Exception. The omission contended for was supplied by the sentence which immediately follows the portion of the charge excepted to:

“You cannot convict, gentlemen — a verdict for conviction cannot be had, under our law — unless every material point going to show the guilt of the accused is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The sixth exception is too general for consideration.

*356 The Seventh Exception. The charge is not susceptible of the construction placed upon it by the appellant, but means no more than that the defendant admitted the charge in the indictment that as a fact he struck the prosecutor with a pitchfork, and not that he had done so in the manner alleged.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.