Opinion
33941.
DECIDED APRIL 22, 1952. REHEARING DENIED MAY 6, 1952.
Voluntary manslaughter; from Laurens Superior Court — Judge Rowland. November 15, 1951.
R. I. Stephens, Al. Hatcher, for plaintiff in error.
W. W. Larsen, Solicitor-General, contra.
The evidence being to the effect that the defendant was drinking whisky, became drunk, and had a quarrel with the deceased, during the course of which the defendant cut and stabbed him, inflicting a mortal wound, the verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter was authorized by the evidence and not contrary to law.
DECIDED APRIL 22, 1952 — REHEARING DENIED MAY 6, 1952.
Gilford A. Autry was indicated by the Laurens County grand jury and charged with having on February 25, 1951, murdered Hilbert Floury by stabbing him with a knife. The defendant pleaded not guilty. The case was tried in Laurens Superior Court, and there was evidence tending to show substantially the following facts: The deceased, Hilbert Floury, worked for and lived with the defendant. On February 25, 1951, around 5:30 to 6 p. m., the deceased came to the door of George Smith, bleeding profusely, and stated to Smith that the defendant had cut him, and asked the witness to take him to the hospital. Floury had a large knife in his hand, and said that he had taken this knife away from the defendant after the defendant had cut him. As they were preparing to leave for the hospital, the wife of the defendant called Smith, and he went to the defendant's house, which was across the street from where he lived. The witness saw the defendant and he was bloody, having a place on the side of his head. He asked the defendant what the trouble was, and the defendant said that he had cut Floury, and "I done my damnedest to stab the knife through him." The witness told the defendant that the defendant had killed the boy, and the defendant said that, if he hadn't killed him, he would do it, and he picked up a lightwood root and started towards the house of the witness where the deceased was. The witness told him not to come any farther. The wife and the witness and his son helped to get the deceased to the doctor, and he died in a few minutes. The deceased told Smith that he and the defendant had a tussle over the knife, which was after the defendant cut him, and that he took the knife from the defendant. Two witnesses testified as to the defendant's drinking and being drunk on the afternoon of the homicide, one testifying that the defendant was so drunk he had to crawl up the steps to the bootlegger's place. The wife and boy of Smith testified to about the same facts as did George Smith. The defendant made a statement, in which he did not deny that he killed the deceased, but stated that the deceased had attacked him in the kitchen of his home, and as he was 43 and had a crippled hand and the deceased was only 32, he would not have attacked the deceased. He stated that during the struggle, in which he was trying to protect himself, the deceased grabbed the knife, and in the struggle over the knife the defendant struck the arm of the deceased and the knife cut the deceased. The defendant stated that he had not been drinking, but that the deceased had been.
There was no evidence as to any previous difficulty between the defendant and the deceased, and it appeared that the deceased was a hired man working for the defendant and living at his home.
The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and he was sentenced to serve from 7 to 10 years in the State Penitentiary. The defendant moved for a new trial on the general grounds only, and excepts to the judgment denying the motion.
There are no special assignments of error. The motion for a new trial is on the general grounds only. The defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of any offense, and that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The defendant states that he was completely justified and should have been found not guilty. The defendant states in his brief that it appears that the deceased went to his home and brought about the situation that caused his death; that the deceased cut and stabbed this defendant before he was "struck a lick" by the defendant; that the defendant begged him to leave, but the deceased continued to stay on and threatened the defendant and did all he could to kill the defendant; and that the defendant had to stab the deceased to save his own life.
The statement of the defendant showed facts as outlined by him in his brief. However, the evidence did not demand a finding that such was the case, but authorized a verdict that the defendant was guilty as charged, in that he was drinking, had a quarrel with the deceased, and stabbed the deceased to his death; and, even after the deceased had gone to the home of George Smith, the defendant wanted to come over there and complete killing the deceased if he was not already dead.
In these circumstances, the verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial, based upon the general grounds only.
Judgment affirmed. Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.