Case Name: STATE v. BAZEN
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1911-07-08
Citations: 89 S.C. 260
Docket Number: 7963
Parties: STATE v. BAZEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 260–267

Head Matter:
7963
STATE v. BAZEN.
1. Juror.' — Where there is no showing in the record of the alleged disqualification of a grand juror, refusal to quash indictment on ground that it was found by illegal grand jury will not be reviewed.
2. Ibid. — Disqualification of only one grand juror will not invalidate an indictment, unless it appear that the jury was composed of only twelve men.
Mr. Justice Hydricic dissents.
3. Charge. — Where defense puts up no evidence, and the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the testimony is that insulting language was used by defendant to deceased in an angry, hostile manner and that such language did actually bring- on a difficulty, it is not a charge on the facts for the Court to assume these circumstances and to charge the law applicable.
Mr. Justice Htdricic dissents.
Before Gary, J., Florence, March, 1910, term.
Affirmed.
Indictment against R. D. Bazen. Defendant appeals.
Messrs. J. W. Ragsdale, R. B. Whiting and Leroy Lee, for appellant. Messrs. Ragsdale and Whiting
cite: There must be a lawful grand jury: 7 Rich. 338; art. V, sec. 22’, Con.; 59 S. C. 206; 54 S. C. 127, 145; 25 Stat: 237; Coo-1. Con. Dim. 89, 92; 28 S. C. 521; 67 S. C. 318; 9 Fla. 9. Appellant cannot show prejudicial error in grand jury room: 17 Ency. 1291, 1295; 2 S. C. 356; 4 Wig. on- Ev. 2361; 1 Whar. Am. Cr. D-, sec. 509-; 1 Whar. Ev., sec. 601; 62 Ala. 383; 30 Tex. 428; 146 111. 175; 6 A. & E. 236; 60 Ga. 145; 90 Md. 145 ; 28 D. R. A. 35. If one juror is illegal the presumption obtains the bill is unlawful: 109 U. S. 65; 52 D. R. A. 83; 12 Fla. 566; 3 Utah 489; 10 Ark. 71; 34 Miss. 614; 33 Miss. 356; 2 Pearso-n 466; 28 Tex. App. 27; 12 Am. St. R. 710; 34 Am. R. 704; 21 Am. R. 265. Charge was on the facts: 85 S. G. 278; 28 S. C. 15; 47 S. C. 513; 85 S. C. 265. Use of opprobrious zuords: 75 S. C. 510; 78 S. C. 96-; 85 S. C. 107. Whether they provoke a difficulty is for jury: 111 Ala. 11; 10-3 Ala. 12; 19 Ky. D. R. 413; 51 S. W. 250 ; 50 D. Ann. 1171; 37 Kan. 420; 91 Ala. 64.
Solicitor Walter H. Wells, contra,
cites: Over age is not disqualification absolute of juror: 24 Cy-c. 206; 36 S. C. 515; 34 S. C. 1-6. Appellant must show prejudice: 56 S~ C. 379.
July 8, 1911.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Ci-iiEE Justice Jones.
The exceptions should be overruled and the judgment affirmed.
There was no error in refusing to quash the indictment. First, because there is nothing in the record showing that proof was made of the alleged disqualification of the grand juror. State v. Brownfield, 60 S. C. 514, 39 S. E. 2. Second, because the disqualification of a single grand juror will not invalidate an indictment, unless it appears that the grand jury was composed of only twelve men. It is not disputed that the grand jury was composed of eighteen, including the alleged disqualified juror. State v. Rafe, 56 S. C. 379, 34 S. E. 660; State v. Graham, 79 S. C. 116, 60 S. E. 431.
There was no error in the charge considered as a whole and in the light of the undisputed facts. No testimony was offered for the defense and the only reasonable inference from the State's testimony was that the insulting lánguage was used by defendant to the deceased in an angry, hostile manner, and that such language did actually bring on the difficulty. Hence there was no error for the Court to assume these circumstances and charge the law applicable. It is not a charge on facts to- assume as established those facts which are the only inferences that can be drawn from the testimony.
Under no view of the law and the testimony could.a verdict more favorable to defendant be properly rendered. Hence there should not be a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.