State v. Chiles

Citations

• 44 S.C. 338
• 22 S.E. 339
• 1895 S.C. LEXIS 79

Syllabus

<p>1. Homicide — Indictment—Cause of Death. — Proof that deceased died from a severe whipping administered by defendant sustains an indictment which charges that 'the prisoner did strike and beat the deceased with switches and sticks, giving to the said deceased on her body one mortal wound of which she died.</p> <p>2. Evidence — Physician—Pacts of Case. — The attending physician, called as an expert, may testify that a whipping received by deceased was the cause of her death from resultant pneumonia, though he based his opinion in part upon information, given to him by the defendant when he made his diagnosis, that the deceased had been, prior to the whipping, in ordinary health, going about doing her work.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Reply.—A physician, testifying on cross-examination that he had never seen another case where pneumonia was caused by a whipping, may be asked in reply whether he had ever before seen a case where there had been such a whipping.</p> <p>4. Homicide — Indictment.—Cause of Death. — Charging Jury. — The judge charged the jury that the defendant should be convicted of murder or manslaughter, as the case might be, if the jury were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the deceased died of pneumonia, which resulted from a whipping inflicted by defendant, or the death was hastened by the whipping. Held, that there was no error in this instruction, even though the indictment charged that deceased died of “one mortal wound,” and did not charge that her death had been accelerated by defendant.</p> <p>5. Ibid. — Refusal of New Trial — Appeal.—The refusal by the trial judge of a new trial, moved for in a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, cannot be reviewed on appeal.</p>