State v. Howard

Citations

• 35 S.C. 197
• 14 S.E. 481
• 1892 S.C. LEXIS 144

Syllabus

<p>1. Conduct of Trial — Several Defendants. — The details of a trial must be left to the presiding judge, and therefore, there being no statute in this State specially regulating the trial of two or more defendants when jointly tried, the order in which the several defendants shall cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution and introduce testimony in their defence is left to the judgment of the trial judge.</p> <p>2. Cross-Examination. — A defendant was refused permission on the cross-examination of two witnesses .for the prosecution to contradict another witness for the prosecution previously examined, the proper foundation having been laid. Held, reversible error which was not cured by the defendant afterward putting these two witnesses on the stand and examining them in his own behalf.</p> <p>3. Comment on Defendant's Failure to Testifv. — The constitution declares that no person shall be compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against himself, and the statute law permits a defendant to testify as to the facts and circumstances of the ease, if he desires to do so and not otherwise. Therefore it is improper for a solicitor, in his argument, to comment upon the failure of the defendant on trial for crime to testify, but it is not reversible error where the trial judge corrected the inference suggested in the argument.</p> <p>4. Crime Committed Under Duress — Threats.—In charging the jury as to one of the defences interposed, that the defendant had been forced by another to commit the homicide, the trial judge charged that “a mere threat to take one’s life with nothing more does not amount to a sufficient excuse for committing homicide.” Held, to be a correct proposition of law.</p> <p>5. Ibid. — In this same connection the trial judge further charged : “In all such cases the degree of force must be such as to deprive the party of his free agency, or, in other words, sufficient to overcome the mind of a person of ordinary firmness.” Held, that in this general rema