Messrs Daniel R. McLeoad, Attorney General, and Edward B. Latimer, Assistant Attorney General, of Columbia, and George F. Coleman, Solicitor, of Winnsboro, forRespondents, cite: As to the Appellant not being under theinfluence of narcotics at the time he entered a plea of guiltybut doing so freely and voluntarily. 39 C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, Sec. 100 p. 672; 243 S.C. 197, 133 S.E.2d 120; 131 S.C. 21, 126 S.E. 759; 291 S.C. 170, 22 S.E.2d 417 (S.C.) 158 S.E.2d 647; 246 S.C. 59, 142 S.E.2d 433; 197 S.C. 145, 14 S.E.2d 698; 39 C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, Sec. 21, p. 471, Note 9; 83 S.Ct. 745, 372 U.S. 293, 9 L.Ed.2d 770; 237 S.C. 364, 117 S.E.2d 362; 22 A C.J.S. Crim. Law, Sec. 485, pp. 99-103; 228 S.C. 244, 89 S.E.2d 701; 204 S.C. 295, 28 S.E.2d 842; 163 S.C. 213, 161 S.E. 449; 160 S.C. 301, 158 S.E. 685; 152 S.C. 17, 149 S.E. 348, 70 A.L.R. 1133; 58 S.C. 335, 36 S.E. 706; 138 S.C. 24, 135 S.E. 651; 126 S.C. 149, 119 S.E. 774; 234 F. Supp. 484; 234 F. Supp. 703; 340 F.2d 848. Messrs. James P. Mozingo, III, and D. Kenneth Baker of Darlington, for Appellant, in Reply, cite: As to a void andillegal detention not ripening into legality by passage of time: 131 S.C. 21, 126 S.E. 759; 201 S.C. 170, 22 S.E.2d 417. As to Appellant being entitled to, and not receiving, amental examination: 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed. 815; 246 S.C. 59, 142 S.E.2d 433; 228 S.C. 244, 89 S.E.2d 701; 160 S.C. 301, 158 S.E
Messrs. Harold Major, of Anderson, and R.B. Hildebrand, of York, for Appellant, cite: As to appellant beingentitled to new trial on ground of after-discovered evidence: 126 S.E. 759, 131 S.C. 21; 134 S.E. 514, 137 S.C. 75; 143 S.E. 811, 146 S.C. 255. As to Trial Judge erring bycharging jury with respect to matter of fact: 15 S.C. 381; 27 S.C. 609, 4 S.E. 567; 187 S.C. 58, 196 S.E. 371; 192 S.C. 382, 6 S.E.2d 903; 210 S.C. 242, 42 S.E.2d 240; 32 S.C. 519, 11 S.E. 204; 209 S.C. 531; 41 S.E.2d 217; 185 S.C. 78, 193 S.E. 199; 39 S.E. 758; 27 S.E. 659, 49 S.C. 481; 25 S.E. 797. As to charge of trialjudge having effect of coercing jury: 90 S.E. 596, 106 S.C. 150; 126 S.C. 437, 120 S.E. 230. As to it being necessarythat indictment for burglary state ownership of premisesbroken and entered: 9 Am. Jur. 263, Sec. 48. Messrs. Rufas Fant, Solicitor, and John C. Watkins, of Anderson, for Respondent, cite: As to appellant not beingentitled to new trial on ground of after-discovered evidence: 201 S.C. 170, 22 S.E.2d 417; 185 S.C. 274, 194 S.E. 11. As to there being sufficient evidence to sustain verdictin instant case: 69 S.C. 295, 48 S.E. 251; 197 S.C. 371, 15 S.E.2d 669; 129 S.C. 43, 123
The courts do not look with favor upon applications for new trials on the ground of after-discovered evidence, as there must be an end to litigation in any case; however, there are cases that motions of this character should be entertained and granted in order that wrongs done may be remedied. State v. Augustine, 131 S.C. 21, 126 S.E. 759. It is the fixed rule that the credibility of newly-discovered evidence offered in support of a motion for a new trial is a matter for determination by the circuit judge to whom it is offered. In him, not this court, resides the power to weigh such evidence; and, his judgment thereabout will not be disturbed except for error of law or abuse of discretion.
James N. Rahal, Esq., of Savannah, Georgia, for Appellant, cites: As to the Appellant, at the time he was sentenced,being under the influence of narcotics and not able to knowthe difference between right and wrong: 128 S.C. 447; 83 S.Ct. 745. Messrs. Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General, and J.C.Coleman and Edward B. Latimer, Assistant Attorneys General, of Columbia, for Respondent, cite: As to the Appellantnot being under the influence of narcotics at the time he entereda plea of guilty: 39 C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, Sec. 100, p. 672, 1964 Cum. Supp., p. 155; 243 S.C. 197, 133 S.E.2d 120; 131 S.C. 21, 126 S.E. 759; 201 S.C. 170, 22 S.E.2d 417; 197 S.C. 145, 14 S.E.2d 698; 237 S.C. 364, 117 S.E.2d 362. As to the Court havingthe power to determine if the accused is mentally competenteven though the evidence is conflicting: 22 A.C.J.S., Crim. Law, Sec. 485, pp. 99-103; 228 S.C. 244, 89 S.E.2d 701; 204 S.C. 295, 28 S.E.2d 842; 163 S.C. 213, 161 S.E. 449; 160 S.C. 301, 158 S.E. 685; 152 S.C. 17, 149 S.E. 348, 70 A.L.R. 1133; 58 S.C. 335, 36 S.E. 706; 138 S.C. 24, 135 S.E. 651; 126 S.C. 149, 119 S.E. 774; 234 F. Supp. 484; 234 F. Supp. 703; 340 F.2d 848. May 17, 1965.
As to following portion of chargeto jury: "You have the right to believe anything that he mayhave said or it is within your power to believe a part thathe says and not to believe other things that he said or youmay believe other things that he said or you may believenothing that he says" being erroneous: 102 S.E. 284, 113 S.C. 154; 101 S.E. 434, 85 W. Va. 330; 133 S.E. 761, 145 Va. 838. As to error on part of trial Judge in failing toinstruct the jury as to the respective roles of the Judge andjury in passing upon the admissibility of a confession, andits final use in evidence: Wharton's Criminal Evidence (11th Ed.) Sec. 602; 154 S.E. 658, 157 S.C. 459; 83 S.E. 971, 99 S.C. 504; 120 S.E. 496, 127 S.C. 107; 126 S.E. 759; 131 S.C. 42; 130 S.E. 511, 133 S.C. 99; 38 S.E.2d 902, 209 S.C. 61; 99 S.E.2d 663, 231 S.C. 650. As to trial Judge failing to instruct jury that it was theirduty to find their verdict in accordance with the law andevidence: 102 S.E. 284, 113 S.C. 154; 98 S.E. 845, 112 S.C. 95.
I have carefully considered all the affidavits before me, and reading them in connection with the testimony taken at the trial, I am fully convinced that there is no probability that such evidence would change the result if a new trial were granted, and this in itself would be a sufficient reason for the refusal of the motion, aside from what has already been said. And it should also be stated that the difficulty out of which these indictments arose occurred on August 4, 1938; the cases were tried in April, 1939; and the motion for a new trial was made on or about February 1, 1940. It, therefore, seems apparent that the requirement of due diligence has not been complied with, and that the matter comes squarely within the principles stated by the Court in the case of State v. Augustine, 131 S.C. 21, 126 S.E., 759. It is, therefore, Ordered, that the motion for a new trial be, and the same is hereby, overruled and refused.
Messrs. L.M. Gasque and F.A. Thompson, for appellant, cite: Refusal of motion to continue is appealable: 78 S.C. 264; 79 S.C. 84; 79 S.C. 107; 142 S.C. 137. Disqualifiedjurors: 158 S.C. 212; 169 S.C. 208. Messrs. G. Lloyd Ford and A.F. Woods, for the State, cite: As to continuance: 107 S.C. 403; 152 S.C. 17. Corroborationdefined: 14 C.J., 1428, 1429; 108 S.C. 455; 103 S.C. 210; 138 S.C. 58; 108 S.C. 356. New trial: 131 S.C. 21; 87 S.C. 152; 158 S.C. 212; 169 S.C. 208. January 18, 1934.
Messrs. J.F. Eppes, P.C. Cothran and Cole L. Blease, for appellants. Messrs. J.G. Leatherwood and C.G. Wyche, for respondent, cite: Court's attitude on after-discovered evidence: 131 S.C. 21; 89 S.C. 51; 71 S.E., 291; Ann. Cas., 1912-D, 1298; 95 S.C. 471; 79 S.E., 645; 93 S.C. 195; 75 S.E., 281; 121 S.C. 290; 114 S.E., 538; 27 A.L.R., 1083; 122 S.C. 493; 115 S.E., 750; 44 S.C. 324; 14 S.C. 432; 2 Bay, 268. Abuse of discretion impliesnot merely error of judgment but error that is plain: 100 S.C. 331; 137 S.C. 75. Newly discovered evidencewhich merely contradicts testimony of witness not sufficientgrounds for new trial: 70 S.C. 448; 50 S.E., 14; 38 S.C. 550; 16 S.E., 770; 38 S.C. 225; 16 S.E., 832; 44 S.C. 325; 21 S.E., 807; 22 S.E., 306; 85 S.C. 229; 130 S.C. 149. Evidence must not be cumulative: 134 S.C. 179; 146 S.C. 258; 87 S.C. 546; 87 S.C. 152; 14 S.E., 432; 15 S.C. 547; 33 S.C. 404; 41 S.C. 549; 19 S.E., 696; 51 S.C. 405; 29 S.E., 2; 38 S.C. 226. July 1, 1932.
Messrs. M.P. Hall and E.L. Asbill, for appellant, cite: Discovery of parol testimony after trial not ground for newtrial: 2 Hill Eq., 339; 10 Rich. Eq., 317; 2 Rich., 194; 38 S.C. 226; 89 S.C. 51; 3 Brev., 350; 1 Nott McC., 563; 1 N. McC., 155; 140 S.C. 387; 14 S.C. 432; 54 S.E., 658; 74 S.C. 376; 39 S.E., 3. Cumulative evidence doesnot entitle one to new trial: 100 S.C. 40; 134 S.C. 180; 20 R.C.L., 295. Messrs. Timmerman Graham, for respondent, cite: New trial on ground of after-discovered evidence is addressedto discretion of trial Court: 131 S.C. 21; 89 S.C. 51; 71 S.E., 291; Ann. Cas., 1912-D, 1928; 95 S.C. 471; 79 S.E., 645; 93 S.C. 195; 75 S.E., 281; 121 S.C. 290; 114 S.E., 538; 27 A.L.R., 1083; 122 S.C. 483; 115 S.E., 750; 14 S.C. 432; 15 S.C. 547; 33 S.C. 404; 12 S.E., 8; 41 S.C. 549; 19 S.E., 696; 51 S.C. 405; 29 S.E., 2; 87 S.C. 546; 70 S.E., 308; 87 S.C. 152. April 15, 1932.