State v. Morrow
Citations
- 40 S.C. 221
- 18 S.E. 853
- 1893 S.C. LEXIS 27
Syllabus
<p>1. An Exception alleging error in a ruling which is not shown by the appeal record to have been made, not considered.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Objection to tiie Indictment for failing- to charge that the act complained of was done felonitmsly, not considered, no ruling upon this point having been made or asked for in the Circuit Court, and no exception taken to such omission before the Jury was sworn, at which time alone the statute permits it to be taken.</p> <p>3. Abortion — Charging Juries. — An indictment charged the crime of procuring and attempting to procure abortion by means of deleterious drugs, and the prosecution offered no evidence of the use of any other means, but evidence of abortion produced by instruments was offered by defendant. Held, that error could not be imputed by defendant to the trial judge in failing to charge that the prosecution was limited in its evidence, and the jury in their verdict, to the means charged in the indictment, when no request so to charge was made, aud the allegation of abortion produced by the use of instruments was made only by way of defence.</p> <p>4. An Exception based upon a misconception of the judge’s charge to the jury, when considered as a whole, overruled.</p> <p>5. Abortion — Verdict—Immaterial Error. — Where an indictment charges defendant in its first count with procuring an abortion, and in its second count with administering drugs with intent to cause abortion, and the jury find the defendant guilty generally, error in the charge as to the second count only would be immaterial.</p> <p>6. The Charge to the Jury must be understood as applying to the case before the court as made by the evidence.</p> <p>7. Abortion — Attempt.—If the abortion in this case had been actually produced by the use of instruments, and the defendant had no connection therewith, he might still bo convicted under the statute of an attempt to produce abortion by the administration of drugs by him.</p> <p>8. Ibid. — Ibid.—Under the statute
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating out-of-state defendant submits to personal jurisdiction in prosecuting state where he voluntarily returns, but State's subject matter jurisdiction over defendant's out-of-state conduct acquired where effect intended for the prosecuting state
- stating out-of-state defendant submits to personal jurisdiction in prosecuting state where he voluntarily returns, but State’s subject matter jurisdiction over defendant’s out-of-state conduct acquired where effect intended for the prosecuting state
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Moiver
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
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.