Court Opinion

ID: 9826457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:57:42.028042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:03.981942
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hydrick.
I concur in the opinion -of Mr. Justice Watts, except in the conclusion that there was reversible error in -the charge on the subject of the reasonable doubt.
4 In the first part o-f his charge, after defining murder, the Circuit Judge said: “The State is called upon to prove beyond a reasonable dio-ubt the material allegations of an indictment, before- a verdict of guilty o-f murder can be written.” Again, when he came to charge on the burden of proof, he said: “The State is called upon to prove the- guilt of the defendant at the bar beyond all reasonable doubt.” He then charged that the burden was on the defendant to- prove his plea of self-defense by the preponderance of the evidence. It is not and canno-t be contended that there was any error in what was- charged. But it is contended that there was error in a mere omission, — in failing to- charge- that, if the jury had a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant had established his plea of self-defense- by the preponderance of the evidence, they should acquit him, and that, because the jury were not charged “that the defendant was entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt on every material point in the case/’ the judgment should! be reversed.
There is no- substantial difference between what was charged and what, it i-s contended, should have been charged. The Court did charge that the State must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt the- material allegations” -o-f'the- indictment. Can that language- be construed otherwise than to mean every material allegation o-f the- indictment? Again, when the Court said, “the State is called upon to prove the guilt o-f the defendant at the bar beyond all reasonable- do-ubt,” can it be said that “every reasonable doubt on every material point in the case” was not included? Such a construction *517of the charge as is contended for is purely technical — too technical for a sound and1 practical administration of the criminal law. It is not reasonable to suppose that, if the charge had conformed with technical precision to- appellant’s conception of what it should have ‘been, it would have affected the result.
But the identical point has been decided against appellant’s contention. In Bodie’s case, 33 S. C., 132, 11 S. E. 624, error was imputed to the Court in failing to charge tbe jury that, if they had a reasonable doubt as to which way the preponderance of the evidence on the plea of self-defense was, they must give the defendant the benefit of that doubt. To which this Count responded, in part, as follows: “Sufficient answer to this would be, that we are unable to- discover that the Circuit Judge was requested to give such further instruction to the jury.” True, the Court did go- on to give another reason, by showing that the jury could not have been misled by the omission, because they had been told, elsewhere in the charge, that “the State is bound to' prove every point against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt,” and, also, that, if they “had a reasonable doubt upon any question of guilt arising in the case,” the defendant was entitled to the benefit of it. The general terms of the charge in the case now under review, as has already been pointed out, dearly indicated to the jury that the defendant was entitled to- the benefit of every reasonable doubt upon every material point in the case. The case of State v. Way, 38 S. C. 346, 17 S. E. 39, is even stronger against appellant’s contention. In that case, the defendant both denied the killing and -relied on the plea of self-defense. The Court charged the State’s 6th request, to- wit: “When self-defense is pleaded, it must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” I-t also- charged defendant’s 14th request, to wit: “If, from all the evidence, the jury have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the defendant fired the pistol shot which caused the death of the deceased, the defendant is *518entitled to the 'benefit of that doubt, and their verdict should be 'not guilty.’ ” The only general instruction on the reasonable doubt was, “if you are satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused killed Whetstone with malice aforethought, your verdict will be simply guilty.” Responding to an assignment of error in charging the State’s 6th request, without adding, “that if, upon the whole testimony, the jury entertains a reasonable doubt as to any material point, the defendant must be accorded the benefit of such doubt,” this Court said: “The Circuit Judge was exceedingly careful to vouchsafe in his charge the benefit of all doubts in favor of the prisoner. This may be done at the time the request is passed upon or afterwards, provided the jury is not left in any doubt as to the application of the principle.”
In a number of other cases, this Court has disposed of similar exceptions by saying that the jury had been instructed with sufficient clearness in other parts of the charge, to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt on every material point in the case, or language of similar import. State v. Thrailkill, 71 S. C. 136, 50 S. E. 551; State v. Andrews, 73 S. C. 260, 53 S. E. 423; State v. Way, 76 S. C. 94, 56 S. E. 653; State v. Dawson, 85 S. C. 235, 67 S. E. 313; State v. Babb, 88 S. C. 395, 70 S. E. 309.
It does not follow, however, that it would have been held to be reversible error, if such general instruction had not been given, in the absence of a request. No' decision of this Court so holding has 'been cited, and nione has been found. On the contrary, the Court has held, in cases too' numerous to mention, that it is -the duty of counsel to- call the Court’s attention to any mere omission or inadvertence in the charge, and that, in the absence of a request, the failure to charge any special proposition of law or on any particular phase of the case, is not reversible error. It does not appear that the Court was requested to give any further or more definite instruction. In State v. Adams, 68 S. C. 421, 47 S. E. 676, the Court failed to> instruct the jury that, if they should con*519viot the defendant of murder, they could recommend him to mercy, and that, under the provisions of a statute, such recommendation would change the sentence from death to life imprisonment. How vastly more important was the omission in that case. Yet, though the defendant was convicted of murder, without recommendation, and sentenced to death, this Court held the error was not reversible. Mr. Justice Woods, speaking for the Court, said: “Failure to charge the jury that they could convict of murder and recommend to mercy, and that such recommendation would result in a sentence of life imprisonment .instead of a sentence of death, has been held by this Court not to' be reversible error, when there was no request for such a charge. State v. Owens, 44 S. C. 324, 22 S. E. 244. The rule is thus stated in State v. Myers, 40 S. C. 556, 18 S. E. 892: ‘As will be observed, in the first ground of appeal the appellant alleges that the Circuit Judge erred in failing to malee a charge that appellant now thinks would have inured to' his benefit. By numerous decisions of this Court it has. been held to be the law in this State, that no such allegation of error will be considered in this Court, unless a request for such charg-e has been made to the Circuit Judge on the trial before him.’ See 11 Ency. P. & P. 217, and the numerous authorities there cited. The author says: ‘The failure of a Judge to charge upon any material point usually results from inadvertence, and the law casts upon the parties the duty of calling the Judge’s attention to the matter. If he then refuses to give a proper requested instruction, such refusal is ground of error; but a party cannot, in a Court of error, avail himself of an omission which he made no> effort to have supplied at the time. The Court cannot be presumed to do more in ordinary cases than express its opinion upon the questions which the parties themselves have raised on the trial. It is not bound to submit to the jury any particular proposition of law unless, its attention is called to it. If counsel desire to> bring any view of the law of the *520case 'before the jury, they must make such view the subject of a request to charge, and, failing in this, they cannot assign error.’ Any other doctrine would, we think, produce overwhelming embarrassment and delay in the practical administration of justice. Under the Constitution of 1895, the rule has been applied in State v. Smith, 57 S. C. 489, 35 S. E. 727; State v. Chiles, 58 S. C. 47; Youngblood v. R. R. Co., 60 S. C. 9, 38 S. E. 232; Sudduth v. Sumeral, 61 S. C. 276, 39 S. E. 434, and other cases. The doctrine is based on acquiescence and waiver. It is true, the Constitution of 1895 requires the Judge in charging juries ‘to declare the law.’ But the right to' have all the law declared may be waived like any other right, and an omission acquiesced in. The failure U> request instructions on any particular point is regarded waiver of the right to such instruction and acquiescence in the omission. If the appellant, who* was represented by most able and vigilant counsel, thought himself prejudiced by the inadvertent omission of the Circuit Judge to speak of the right of the jury to' recommend to mercy, and the effect of such recommendation, he should have requested the statement made.”
In Dover v. Lockhart Mills, 86 S. C. 231, 68 S. E. 525, the error assigned consisted in using the word “and” where “or” should have been used in the charge. The Court quoted with approval from the opinion in Davis v. R. R., 75 S. C. 307, 55 S. E. 526, as follows: “It would greatly embarrass the practical administration of the law for the appellate Court, in reviewing charges U> the Jury, to become hypercritical or a stickler for the technical rules of philology in every phrase and clause, and reverse verdicts for some loose expression or some slight misuse of a word, when the general import of the charge stated the law. Any portion of a charge 'to which exception is taken should be fairly construed with reference to the clear tenor and import of the whole, and as an effort to explain the law of a case to men of ordinary or average education and intelligence. The aver*521age juryman has little knowledge and less concern about fine distinctions, but generally has a desire and capacity for sufficient information to enable him to- do' substantial justice ■between the parties,” and added: “Mere inadvertence of such a nature in charging the jury must 'be brought to the attention of the Judge, or they will not avail as grounds of appeal, for if they are not -of sufficient importance to attract the attention of counsel learned in the law, we m!ay safely assume they do not mislead the jury or affect the result.” To this may be added: If counsel 'Observe such an omission or inadvertence, and fail to- bring it to the attention of the Court, to allow them to take advantage of it on appeal would be to let them speculate on chances — the chance of winning on Circuit, notwithstanding the 'omission or inadvertence, and, in case of losing on Circuit, of obtaining a new trial in this Court. Such trifling with the administration of justice cannot be tolerated.
Following are some of the more recent cases in which this principle has been applied: Jennings v. Mfg. Co., 72 S. C. 411, 52 S. E. 113; Williams v. Ry., 76 S. C. 1, 56 S. E. 652; State v. Thompson, 76 S. C. 116, 56 S. E. 789; Snipes v. Ry., 76 S. C. 208, 56 S. E. 959; Morrison v. Ass’n, 78 S. C. 398, 59 S. E. 27; State v. Boyleston, 84 S. C. 574, 66 S. E. 1047; State v. Chastain, 85 S. C. 64, 67 S. E. 6; State v. Hendrix, 86 S. C. 64, 68 S. E. 1291; State v. Crosby, 88 S. C. 98, 70 S. E. 440. It will 'be seen from these cases that this Court cannot reverse the judgment in this case on the ground in question without overruling many of its previous decisions, and overthrowing a wise- and just policy to- which it has adhered for many years in the administration of the law.
The judgment is affirmed.
Messrs. Chiee Justice Gary and Justice Woods concur.
*522February 8, 1913. The remittitur was held up herein to permit appellant to- sue out a writ of error to the United States Supreme Court, and upon the Court being informed the design had been abandoned, the remittitur was ordered sent down by per curiam order filed February 8, 1913.