Case Name: STATE v. SENN
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1890-03-29
Citations: 32 S.C. 392
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. SENN.
Judges: Mr. Chiee Justice Simpson concurred in this opinion.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 392–409

Head Matter:
STATE v. SENN.
1. In a murder case, a physician, who examined externally the body of the deceased, was competent to express an opinion as to what agency was capable of producing marks of bruises observed on the neck of the deceased, but he should not have been permitted to testify that in his opinion such marks were in fact produced by a particular agency — the human hand.
2. On the trial of a husband for the murder of his wife, testimony is inadmissible to prove an alleged threat by the prisoner against his wife, as detailed by her on the witness stand in his hearing, and not denied by him, in a proceeding before a trial justice, to which the husband was no party; for he was not then called upon to deny the charge so made, nor would his denial have been admissible in evidence under the rules of law.
3. Testimony given by witnesses at a coroner’s inquest, is inadmissible against them on their trial, under a charge afterwards preferred, of the murder of the deceased person.
4. It being shown by affidavits, that the jury, during the night and while deliberating on their verdict, came from their room into the court room and there mingled with the constables of the court, the verdict was set aside.
Me. Justice McGowan, dissenting.
Per McGowan, A. J.—
5. There is no error in defining “reasonable doubt” to be a “strong, substantial, well'founded doubt, founded in the evidence.”
6. A mere slip of the tongue in a charge to the jury, and one which could not possibly have 'misled the jury, does not furnish a ground for a new trial.
7. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion as to the conduct of the trial, in permitting a witness to be recalled in reply to prove a statement by defendant which defendant had not denied making.
8. Evidence that the deceased (wife of defendant) had procured a peace warrant against the prisoner was admissible against him.
9. After verdict, it is too late to raise the objection that deceased’s name was Mellissa Ozella Senn, and not M. Ozella Senn, as charged in the indictment.
10.Affidavits of jurors should not be received to impeach their verdict or to show an intent not expressed by its words.
Before Kershaw, J., Spartanburg, October, 1888.
The case is thus fully stated in the separate and dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice McGowan:
At the October term of the court (1887) for Spartanburg County, the defendants, David N. Senn and Helena Boland, were tried and convicted for the murder of M. Ozella Senn, wife of the said David N. There is no copy of the indictment in the “Brief,” nor “Case” stated — only portions of the evidence being printed— and therefore it is necessary to give a short outline of the facts in order to make intelligible the several points raised on the appeal.
David N. Senn and wife lived in the County of Newberry, and near by, almost as members of his family (within the circle of 100 yards), lived his mother and her sister, Mrs. Lucy Lake, an invalid lady, and also his brother-in-law, P. B. Boland, who had a sister, Helena Boland. With a view, as stated, to show a motive for the killing, the State introduced testimony to the effect that a criminal intimacy existed between the defendants, David N. Senn and Helena Boland, prior to the death of Senn’s wife. There was evidence tending to show, that Senn and his wife did not live together happily, and at times were separated ; that on one occasion (precise time not stated), Senn’s wife (Ozella) prosecuted his mother for an alleged assault upon her (Ozella), for something she had said about an attempt to poison her. Senn, her husband, was not in the case — refused even to testify as a witness — but, being present, his wife charged him with having said to her, “that if he heard any more about that poison, or something of the kind, that he would burst-- out of her with an axe — that he could see her dead and in-, and he could rake the coals of fire over her,” and to this Senn said nothing. To this testimony the defendants objected, but the judge ruled that any statements this lady made in the presence of Senn, and also in the presence of this witness, this witness can testify to.
On August 9, 1886, W. G. Peterson, a trial justice of the County of Newberry, at the instance of Mrs. Ozella Senn, issued a peace warrant against her husband, Senn, who entered into a recognizance to keep the peace, without any investigation. To a suggestion, that it might be better for .the parties to separate, David N. Senn objected, saying he had done nothing to go to jail for, and he would not run away. His wife consented to go home with him, and seems to have done so.
On Monday morning (August 23), Dr. J. P. Pool, of Spartan-burg County, was summoned to go to the house of his neighbor, John T. Senn, and upon arriving there, John T. introduced him to his brother, David N. Senn, who had just arrived, who wanted a certificate from him of the cause of his wife’s death; that he did not think that his family or friends, or her friends, down in Newberry would be satisfied unless there was some statement of the cause of her death. The doctor asked him' in reference to the previous health of his wife, and he gave him to understand that it had been delicate; that, as well as remembered, she had had chronic chills. He stated that she “had eaten a peck of green peaches” in travelling on Sunday ; that he lived in Newberry County (about 35 miles off); ' he was coming up the country to rent land; he thought it would improve his wife’s health. When asked why he had been so long on the road, and “camped” within a mile and a half of his destination, he said his team was weak, and he had been misdirected.
The doctor continued: “I then went to see the body. It was dressed, and I did not examine any part except the head and the neck. When the face was uncovered, I found it was congested; that every capillary was distended to its utmost capacity. I found a bruise over the left eye, a little below the edge of the hair; it was between three-quarters and an inch long ; the outer skin was abraded; it was'broken for a little over a quarter of an inch, and the blueness was between three-quarters and an inch long. There was also a bruise across the nose, between a quarter and a half inch wide, extending entirely across the nose and down on either side of the nose. Then I examined the neck. I found the neck on either side, from a little above the collar bone to the lower part of the ears, was a blue streak, extending near to the collarbone, but it did not go down to the collar-bone; but it extended from an inch above the collar-bone backwards to the ear. On the left side it seemed deeper than on the right. The eochymosis, as we call it, or effusion of blood, was greater on the left side than on the right. But it was dark on both sides.” When asked what, in his judgment, produced these streaks and bruises on the neck, objection was made to the question; but the judge ruled, being a physician, “if he had an opinion, the witness could express it”; and the witness answered, “My opinion was, that they were made by some external force; but what that was, whether it was a rope or a hand, I could not say, but was inclined to think it was a hand.”
The wagon party, with the dead body of Mrs. Senn, seemed to have returned at once to Newberry; for on Wednesday. August 25, J. N. Bass, the coroner of Newberry County, with W. G. Peterson, Esq., as his clerk, held an inquest over the body of Mrs. Senn, which was then buried. The coroner, Bass, and his clerk, Peterson, both testified 'that at “the inquest” David N. Senn and Helena Boland were examined as witnesses as to the circumstances under which Mrs. Ozella Senn came to her death; that their statements were taken down in writing (which, as it incidentally appeared, were in court, but not called for). Each of the witnesses was proceeding to state the accounts which Senn and Helena Boland had given at the inquest as to the circumstances attending the death of their fellow-traveller. The defendants interposed an objection to the testimony, but the judge ruled “that he knew of no principle of law upon which he could exclude the declarations made by the parties before the coroner. There was no case, then, made at all. The parties were said to have been in company with the deceased, and it was entirely proper that they should be there” (at the inquest). The statements were then put in evidence.
There is some reference in the “Brief” to a second inquest, and a week after, on September 3rd, the defendants, David N. Senn and Helena Boland, were arrested for the murder. There were no requests to charge. After deliberating all night, the jury found the following verdict: “Guilty, but strongly recommended to the mercy of the court.” A motion was made for a new trial on the following grounds [e, e, f, h,-being omitted, because abandoned] : “(a) That persons other than the jury were present with the jury during the time that the case was under advisement; said persons being inside the jury room where the jury were confined, and sitting and being in the midst of them at different times and for various lengths of time, and, in the case of one of the said persons, being present during almost the entire night, or time of their deliberation; this without the presence of the presiding judge and the defendants or their counsel. (b) Because the ver7 diet does not indicate to the court which of the defendants is guilty, and does not cover both the defendants, (d) Because there is a variance between the allegation of the indictment and the evidence in the case as to the persons, or name of the person, with whose death the defendants are charged. (y) Because there is now no law under which these defendants could have a trial, or be convicted, (i) Because the verdict, taken in its entirety and in connection with the evidence, is inconsistent and contradictory, &c.” (Let the affidavits of jurymen, S. C. Miller, H. H. Gram-ling, C. E. Fleming, and J. A. Cleveland, be inserted in the report of the case. Gramling and Fleming each made two affidavits.)
The judge refused the motion for a new trial, among other things saying: “As to the alleged errors of the presiding judge, I have endeavored very conscientiously, ever since I have been on the bench, to admit an error, and correct it as far as in my power. * * * All the matters which are urged upon the evidence and upon the affidavits of the jurors, and the affidavits in regard to access to the jury, and all those matters appertaining to the conduct of the case since the jury retired, all of'these are very proper subjects of consideration by the Supreme Court. Those matters are not concluded by anything that I decide here. It is proper, probably, to present those matters to them, in order to have a better access to the Supreme Court. The only thing that I do conclude, and, it seems to me, the only thing I am chargeable with on this occasion, is to determine whether, upon the facts of the case, and the rulings during the progress of it, I ought to grant a new trial. This'is a matter which has been exercising me from the time these unfortunate people were convicted. I have considered these matters during the progress of the case very earnestly, and I do not find that any error has been committed in regard to the admission of evidence, or any erroneous charge to the jury, or any omission to prove anything that ought to be proved in the case. I think it was a case for the jury, and being a case of circumstantial evidence, if it produced conviction on their minds, I cannot say — it is impossible for me to say — that there is not sufficient evidence to justify this finding. I wish it was otherwise. I am not devoid of the ordinary feelings of humanity ; and I hope, if there be any error whatever in this conviction, that the Supreme Court may give the relief which ir is impossible for me to give. In view of the great and uncommon zeal and earnestness displayed by the counsel, I would like to be able to take a more favorable view of it; but I find myself utterly powerless to do that. This case will have to be reviewed in the Supreme Court,” &c.
The defendants appeal to this court on the following grounds:
“1. Because the presiding judge erred in ruling that J. P. Pool, an expert witness for the prosecution, was at liberty to express his opinion as to what certain marks on the throat of the deceased ‘were made by.’
“2. Because the judge erred in admitting the testimony of W. Gr. Peterson, to the effect that M. Ozella Senn, in her life time, had made certain statements to him as’ trial justice, in the presence of the defendant, D. N. Senn.
“3. Because the judge erred in admitting the testimony of W. Gr. Peterson, to the effect that he, as trial justice, issued a warrant for the defendant, David N. Senn, at the instance of his wife, M. Ozella Senn.
“4. Because the judge erred in admitting the testimony of J. N. Bass, as to the statements made before him as coroner, at the inquest, by the defendant, Helena Boland, while she was under oath and on examination as a witness (and, by amendment of the ‘‘Brief,” the same as to the testimony of David N. Senn).
“5. Because the judge erred in admitting the oral testimony of j. N. Bass, to prove what was the testimony of the defendant, Helena Boland, at the inquest, at which she was sworn as a witness, and her evidence taken down in writing and subscribed by her (and by amendment of the “Brief,” the same as to the testimony of David N. Senn).
“6. Because the judge erred in admitting J. T. Pool, a witness for the prosecution in reply, to testify as to certain statements made to him by the defendant, D. N. Senn, and which the defendant, while on the stand, had not denied making.
“7. Because the judge erred in refusing defendant’s motion for a new trial, based on the following grounds: [Here follow the grounds before indicated].
“8. Because the judge, in his charge to the jury, spoke of the defendants, D. N. Senn and Helena Boland, as husband and wife, whereas there was no testimony to that effect.
<-9. (By amending the “Brief.”) Because the judge erred in charging the jury, that ‘a reasonable doubt is’ a strong, substantial, well founded doubt, founded in the evidence,” &c.
The affidavits submitted on the motion for a new trial were as follows:
“Personally comes S. O. Miller, and being duly sworn, deposes and says : That he was a juror in the trial of this case. That the recommendation to the mercy of the court was intended to prevent the execution of the defendants. That the word ‘strongly’ was placed in the verdict designedly, and was intended to express a fixed opposition to their execution, founded upon a conviction as to the character of the.evidence in the case. That five of the jurors, including himself, were in favor of a verdict of not guilty. That they adhered to this verdict. That they at last yielded to the other seven on the express condition that their conviction of doubt as to the guilt of the defendants should not be outraged by their execution. That his doubts were so strong that had he not fully understood that the verdict at last rendered would prevent an execution, he would have remained upon the-jury to this moment.”
“I have read the above affidavit of Mr. S. C. Miller and con-, cur in every syllable of it, and do now protest against the hanging of the defendants. This protest I make most solemnly, for their execution-would be a violation of our verdict.”
Sworn to by H. H. Gramling.
O. E. Fleming, sworn: “I swear that I was foreman of the jury in the above case. That the purpose of the jury in finding the verdict that they did was to induce a commutation of the death penalty. That it was a compromise verdict, and was the method adopted by those in favor of a verdict of‘not guilty,’ and the rest of the jury to come to any agreement at all. That the execution now of the defendants would not be in accord with the intention of the jury. That I most earnestly recommend now that the verdict of the jury be acquiesced in, and that the death penalty be commuted.”
U. H. Gremlin g, sworn, says: “That two of the constables of the court were in the jury room during the period that they had the case under advisement. That one of them delivered a message from the presiding judge. That one of them sat in the group in which the jury sat at several times during the night in the midst of the jurymen. That other words were spoken other than those prescribed by law as to an agreement on a verdict. That one of the constables sat inside of the jury room during the entire night. That all the jury had refreshments, and some of them had bed-clothing furnished them.”
J. A. Cleveland, sworn, says: “That two of the constables of the court were at different times in the jury room in the midst of the jury during the consideration of the above stated case. That one of said constables sat in the group of the jurymen at different times for a considerable length of time on each occasion. That there was some one other than the jury in the jury room with them during the entire night.”
C. F. Fleming, sworn, says: “That in the morning of Sunday last, while the above stated case was under the consideration of the jury, he came out of one of the jury rooms, where he and one of the other members of the jury had retired for consultation on the case, and found one of the constables of the court sitting at the stove in the court room, in the midst of the jury. That there was some one sitting during the entire night, or most of it, on the inside of the door of the court room in which the jury were deliberating. That as soon as this affiant became aware of the presence of said constable immediately in the midst of the jury sitting by the stove, he indicated his desire to said constable that he retire, which he did. That he does not know how long said constable had been in communication with the jury and sitting with them around the stove, for he had been asleep' during a.good portion of the night.”
Mr. George Johnstone, for appellant.
Mr. Sehumpert, solicitor, contra.
March 29, 1890.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by