Case Name: STATE v. HOLMES
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1920-12-20
Citations: 115 S.C. 238
Docket Number: 10524
Parties: STATE v. HOLMES.
Judges: Messrs. Justices Hydrick, Fraser and Gage concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 115
Pages: 238–245

Head Matter:
10524
STATE v. HOLMES.
(105 S. E. 347.)
1. Homicide — Instruction as to Malice Reversible Error. — Where defendant was convicted of murder, instruction that an unlawful act by a sane person is presumed to have been maliciously done held ground for reversal, since, in absence of such instruction, defendant may have been convicted merely for manslaughter.
2. Criminal Law — Unlawful Act Not Necessarily Malicious. — An unlawful act is not necessarily malicious.
Before Wieson, J., Aiken, Fall term, 1919.
Reversed and new trial ordered.
Amos Holmes indicted for the murder of his wi'fe, Dome Holmes, in 1903, and, upon conviction, appeals.
The following is the Judge’s charge, referred to in the opinion of Chief Justice Gary:
Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the jury: The defendant, Amos Holmes, is on trial before you-on the charge of murder. The indictment charges that the murder was committed on the 21st day of February, 1903. That is a good many years ago. You have heard the evidence in regard to that, etc.
Now, murder is the killing of one person by another with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. Malice means the wilful, intentional doing of -a wrongful act. The law says that malice is the wilful, intentional doing of a wrongful act. When ’ a sane, responsible person, not a child or maniac, but whenever a sane person commits an unlawful act, the law says that he does it maliciously. There is only one kind of malice, but two ways of expressing it, and hence you hear these terms, express malice and implied malice. There is only one kind of malice, but two ways of showing it. • ■
How may express malice be shown ? It may be shown by what a party says he is going to do; by threats or declarations. How may implied malice be shown? From the very cruelty or atrocity of the act committed, or from the character of instrument used. Whenever a homicide occurs, and it is done with a deadly weapon, the law implies mglice from the nature of the weapon used. For instance, if a ■man kills another with a gun or pistol, in the first instance the law implies malice from the using of a deadly weapon; but that is only an implication, and when the facts come out, and it is shown that one kills another with that kind of a weapon, and yet if he did it in self-defense or accidentally, the implication of málice is done away with, and the State has to prove malice just like any other element going to make out the charge of murder. In order to convict a party of murder, it has to be shown that it was done in malice.
The term “aforethought” does not necessarily mean that malice existed for any length of time; but the law says, if the malice was there at the time the act was committed, that that is malice aforethought.
In every charge of murder there is a lesser degree of homicide, called manslaughter. That is the felonious killing of one person by another in sudden heat and passion and upon sufficient legal provocation. It is still a felonious killing. Not only that, but done in heat and passion. Not only that, but upon sufficient legal provocation. It won’t do for a man to kill another suddenly and say, “I am not guilty of murder.” It must be upon sufficient legal provocation. What is sufficient legal provocation? It is some act which in the opinion of the jury would so disturb the equilibrium of a person of ordinary reason and prudence and courage that, while laboring under that passion caused by this sudden provocation, he kills his fellow man, and he is not guilty of murder, but manslaughter. A man cannot get mad with you, and kill you, and say, “I ató not guilty of murder.” It must be upon sufficient legal provocation. The law says we must curb our passions; but, should you get into sudden heat and passion upon sufficient legal provocation, or something calculated to arouse the passion of a person-of ordinary reason and courage, and you kill, you are not guilty of murder, but of manslaughter. Manslaughter is the felonious killing of a person without malice.
Now, I understand that there is no self-defense set up in this case.
Mr. Williams: No, sir.
The State charges the defendant with committing murder, and he says that he didn’t do it. Now, the State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; that is, the' State must prove it by what witnesses say they saw and heard, and by circumstances, and must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. What is reasonable doubt? A doubt for which you can give a reason; not a flimsy or fanciful doubt, but a strong, substantial doubt arising in and growing out of the testimony — a doubt that will cause an honest man to hesitate. When a jury has such a doubt, they should resolve that doubt in favor of the defendant and acquit him,;
If the State has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, you will acquit him. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not it is murder or manslaughter, you should give the defendant the benefit of that doubt, and say manslaughter, and not murder. If he is guilty of murder, and you see fit to recommend him to the mercy of the Court, that will mean life imprisonment. If you find him guilty, and do not recommend him, that will mean death in the electric chair. Your verdict will be guilty, or guilty of murder with recommendation to the mercy of the Court, or guilty of manslaughter, which means punishment of not more than 30 years, giving the defendant every reasonable doubt that you may have in this case.
Write your verdict on the back of the indictment, and sign your name as foreman.
Mr. Jas. F. Williams, for appellant,
cites : Proper foundation was not laid for dying declaration: 107 S. C. 439. _ Judge’s charge that “every unlawful act is malicious” zvas erroneous: 14 Rich. L,. 253: Not necessary that killing he feloniously done to constitute manslaughter, as mere negligence may justify manslaughter: 111 S. C. 58.
Mr. R'obt. L. Gunter, Solicitor, and Mr. John Bdzvin Stansfield, for respondent,
cite: General objection not sufficient ground on which to found exception as to dying dec iaration: 100 S. C. 115; 92 S. C. 171; 91 S. C. 516. Rule as to dying declarations: 93 S. C. 510; 87 S. C. 550. Language %ised sufficient to admit declaration: 26 S. C. 155; 25 S. C. 172. Stronger than in 24 S. C. i8p. And exception should not he sustained, as similar testimony was introduced without objection: 91 S. C. 537; 72 S. C. 426. Charge as to manslaughter was in accordance with 85 S. C. 66.
December 20, 1920.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.