State v. James
Citations
- 34 S.C. 49
- 12 S.E. 657
- 1891 S.C. LEXIS 15
Syllabus
<p>1. Voir Eire — Opposition to Capital Punishment. — The Circuit Judge being the trier of the fact whether a juror is indifferent, there was no error of law in the rejection by the judge of a juror in a murder case, who declared himself opposed to capital punishment.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Formed Opinion. — -For the same reason there was no error of law in rejecting a juror who said he could find a verdict according to the law and evidence, but hiid been a juror on the trial of defendant’s accomplice and would discredit the testimony of some of the witnesses.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Ibid.—There was no error in accepting a juror who thought, from what he had heard of the case, that defendant was guilty, but felt that he could render a fair and impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence.</p> <p>4. Evidence — Acts and Declarations op Conspirators. — How far the acts and declarations of a conspirator are admissible in evidence against his co-conspirators, considered.</p> <p>5. Improper Evidence Withdrawn. — Where evidence improperly received was withdrawn from the consideration of the jury, this court refused to grant a new trial moved for on the ground that the jury had heard the testimony.</p> <p>6. Evidence — Act op Conspirator. — There was no error in permitting a witness to describe the movements of defendant’s alleged co-conspirator after the homicide had been committed.</p> <p>7. Evidence — Declarations of Deceased. — Defendant contending that two negro men had killed deceased because of their jealousy towards him on account of his relations with their wives, proved by a witness that deceased had once bought four fish and given one to each of two negro women. Held, that what deceased said when he presented these two fish was not improperly excluded.</p> <p>S. Confidential Communications by an Accomplice — Waiver.—An attorney will not be required to disclose confidential communications made to him by his client, although such client had afterwards taken the sta
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[T]he rule of evidence which holds as inviolable professional communications between attorney and client is one of the most important, and in all forms must be maintained in all its integrity.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McGowan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Harrison v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1975-10-07· cited 80×
- State v. BrittSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1960-11-16· cited 38×
- Davis v. Parkview ApartmentsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2014-08-06· cited 35×
- State v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1970-01-13· cited 26×
- State v. HitopoulusSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1983-11-28· cited 20×
- United States v. FairUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1953-05-20· cited 17×
- State v. FariesSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1923-07-20
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.