State v. Turner

Citations

• 36 S.C. 534
• 15 S.E. 602
• 1892 S.C. LEXIS 105

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence. — A witness for the State having made a statement on his direct examination which, he admitted on his cross-examination, he had not made in his testimony at the coroner’s inquest, the trial judge did not err in permitting this witness to testify in reply, that he had made the same statement at other times, and had included it in his affidavit on the occasion of defendants application for hail.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Husband and Wife. — A husband may not be compelled to disclose a confidential communication made to him by his wife, but where the defendant takes the witness stand and discloses of his own motion a statement made to him by his wife, he may be required to make full disclosure of the conversation of which the statement was a part.</p> <p>3. An Exception not considered, because vague and too general.</p> <p>4. Evidence — Character.—A person may testify to the general reputation of a prior witness in the cause, and say whether from such reputation that witness was worthy of belief, when the present witness knows the voice of the resident .community, without regard to the number of people he has heard express themselves, or whether he has personal acquaintance with the witness whose character for veracity has been assailed.</p> <p>5. Conduct of Triad — Argument—Appeal.—In the argument of causes, counsel, while allowed some freedom, are restricted by general rules of conduct, to be enforced under the direction and control of the trial judge ; but if improper statements are made by counsel in a law case, they can be reviewed in this court only by appeal from some ruling of the trial judge on the subject. Therefore, if the prosecuting officer stated to the jury matters of fact not proven, and also appealed to their prejudices, this court cannot review his conduct where the trial judge was not asked at the time to rule upon the matter.</p> <p>6. Cases Criticised. — This case distinguished from State v. McNinah, 12 S. 0., 89, and State v. Robertson, 26