Case ID: scl_13/html/0383-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Colcock\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State vs. James T. Williams.
    'ín a capital case, the court Held it was not sufficient cause to change the venue, that the prisoner swore he believed he could not obtain an impartial trial, because a sum of money had been raised by subscription by some of the citizens of the district to apprehend him, he having escaped from the sheriff.
    Newberry district, Fall Term, 1822.
    
    Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson.
    
    THE prisoner was charged with the offence of negro stealing, and on being brought to the bar, moved the court for an order to change the venue, stating on affidavit that he believed he could not obtain a fair trial in that district. The fact on which that belief was predicated, as stated on behalf of the prisoner, was, that there had been a sum of money raised by subscription by some of the citizens of the district for his apprehension, (be having escaped from the sheriff on his first arrest.) The presiding judge refused to grant the order, and a motion was now made to reverse that decision, on the ground as stated in the brief, viz:
    
      That the evidence of the improbability of a fair and impartial trial was such as ought to have induced the court io order the venue to be changed.
    
      Jeter, Sol. for the motion.
    
      Thompson, contra.
   Mr. Justice Colcock

delivered the opinion of the court :

I give no opinion on the question as to the authority of the court to change the venue in a capital felony. But, considering the case on the ground of discretion alone, the-court see no reason to reverse the decision.

The fact stated was not of such a character as to produce any improper bias on the minds of those who were subscribers, and the subscription was confined to a very few. The feeling which would induce a wish to see one, charged with a violation of the law, brought to trial, would insui'e an acquittal on the proof of his innocence. But when we eonsider the guards which the law has placed around the accused, it is impossible to- suppose that there was any reason io apprehend that he could not have obtained a fair- trial. He may challenge twenty peremptorily, and for cause an indefinite number.

The district is a large and populous one, and could afford many juries free from all th'e bias which was apprehended. Even in civil cases, the affidavits to induce the exercise of this discretion, are required to be very strong. (2 Johnson’s Cases, 116. 2 Johnson’s Rep. 374. 3 Burrows, 1330.)

The motion is dismissed.

Justices Johnson, Huger, Gantt, Richardson & Noll, concurred.