State v. Council

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Riley

    137 Wn. 2d 904 (Wash. 1999)   Cited 213 times
    Reaffirming that an aggressor instruction "is appropriate if there is conflicting evidence as to whether the defendant's conduct precipitated a fight"

    Contrary to the majority's implication, many cases from other jurisdictions support the proposition that an aggressor may lose the ability to argue self-defense by speaking provocative words. See, e.g., Vaughn v. State, 17 Ala. App. 383, 84 So. 879 (1920); Wheatley v. State, 93 Ark. 409, 125 S.W. 414 (1910); People v. Barnard, 208 Ill.App. 3d 342, 567 N.E.2d 60 (mere words enough), appeal denied, 139 Ill.2d 598, 575 N.E.2d 917, 159 Ill. Dec. 110 (1991); McCarty v. Commonwealth, 244 Ky. 413, 51 S.W.2d 249 (1932); State v. Ball, 262 S.W. 1043 (Mo. 1924); State v. Council, 129 S.C. 116, 123 S.E. 788 (1924); Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d 509 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Scott v. Commonwealth, 143 Va. 510, 129 S.E. 360 (1925). DOLLIVER, J. Pro Tem., concurs with TALMADGE, J.

  2. State v. Richburg

    253 S.C. 458 (S.C. 1969)   Cited 6 times
    In State v. Richburg, 253 S.C. 458, 171 S.E.2d 592 (1969), this Court dealt with a shooting incident and the testimony as to self-defense, of the defendant, corroborated only by his wife.

    , 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 83 S.Ct. 407. As to the Court erring in refusing to hold that,on the evidence presented, Appellant shot the deceased inself defense: 149 S.C. 367, 147 S.E. 310; 147 S.C. 514, 145 S.E. 404; 134 S.C. 329, 133 S.E. 31; 5 Am. Jur., 768, Arrest, Sec. 82; 211 S.C. 300, 44 S.E.2d 844; 260 F. 16, cer. den. 250 U.S. 674, 63 L.Ed. 1201, 40 S.Ct. 54, 7 A.L.R. 307; 286 F. 983; 5 Am. Jur.2d 769, Arrest, Secs. 82, 83; 1 S.C. 292, 40 C.J.S. 1023; 161 Ga. 166, 129 S.E. 772; 41 Idaho 616, 243 P. 359; 232 Ky. 159, 22 S.W.2d 599; 202 S.C. 473, 25 S.E.2d 178; 116 S.C. 282, 108 S.E. 93; 113 S.C. 147, 101 S.E. 644; 94 S.C. 458, 78 S.E. 324; 85 S.C. 236, 67 S.E. 314; 82 S.C. 388, 64 S.E. 595; 66 S.C. 469, 45 S.E. 1; 43 S.C. 205, 21 S.E. 4; 33 S.C. 582, 12 S.E. 556; 13 S.C. 464; 227 S.C. 271, 87 S.E.2d 681; 210 S.C. 348, 42 S.E.2d 710; 200 S.C. 504, 21 S.E.2d 178; 113 S.C. 513, 101 S.E. 847; 113 S.C. 147, 101 S.E. 644; 108 S.C. 442, 95 S.E. 74; 86 S.C. 81, 67 S.E. 24; 66 S.C. 469, 45 S.E. 1; 129 S.C. 116, 123 S.E. 788; 129 S.C. 166, 123 S.E. 817; 103 S.C. 316, 88 S.E. 20; 85 S.C. 64, 67 S.E. 6; 85 S.C. 236, 67 S.E. 314; 126 S.C. 528, 120 S.E. 240; 119 S.C. 120, 111 S.E. 880; 43 S.C. 132, 20 S.E. 993; 185 S.C. 184, 193 S.E. 303; 90 S.C. 290, 73 S.E. 177; 72 S.C. 194, 51 S.E. 685. Julian S. Wolfe, Esq., Solicitor, of Orangeburg, for Respondent, cites: As to the trial Judge properly refusing themotion for arrest of judgment and denying the motion fora new trial: 209 S.C. 246, 39 S.E.2d 769; 205 S.C. 514, 32 S.E.2d 825; 205 S.C. 514, 32 S.E.2d 825; 117 S.C. 470, 108 S.E. 119; 111 S.C. 174, 97 S.E. 62, 3 A.L.R. 1500.

  3. State v. Richburg

    250 S.C. 451 (S.C. 1968)   Cited 25 times
    Emphasizing the need for specific findings of fact when the legality of a search or seizure is raised

    1074, 13 L.Ed. 2d 934. As to error on part of trial judge in refusing tohold that, on the evidence presented, appellant shot the deceasedin self-defense: 149 S.C. 367, 147 S.E. 310; 147 S.C. 514, 145 S.E. 404; 134 S.C. 329, 133 S.E. 31; 82 S.C. 388, 64 S.E. 595; 72 S.C. 74, 51 S.E. 524; 66 S.C. 469, 45 S.E. 1; 43 S.C. 132, 20 S.E. 993; 33 S.C. 582, 12 S.E. 556; 24 S.C. 283; 5 Am. Jur. 768, Arrest, Sec. 82; 1 S.C. 292; 211 S.C. 300, 44 S.E.2d 844; 260 F. 16, cer. den. 250 U.S. 674, 63 L.Ed. 1201, 40 S.Ct. 54, 7 A.L.R. 307; 286 F. 963; 5 Am. Jur.2d 769, Arrest, Secs. 82, 83; 161 Ga. 166, 129 S.E. 772; 41 Idaho 616, 243 P. 359; 232 Ky. 159, 22 S.W.2d 599; 206 S.C. 426, 34 S.E.2d 779; 1 Mill Const. 34; 1 Bay 351; 202 S.C. 473, 25 S.E.2d 178; 116 S.C. 282, 108 S.E. 93; 113 S.C. 147, 101 S.E. 644; 94 S.C. 458, 78 S.E. 324; 85 S.C. 236, 67 S.E. 314; 43 S.C. 205, 21 S.E. 4; 13 S.C. 464; 210 S.C. 348, 42 S.E.2d 710; 113 S.C. 513, 101 S.E. 847; 108 S.C. 442, 95 S.E. 74; 86 S.C. 81, 67 S.E. 24; 129 S.C. 116, 123; 129 S.C. 166, 123 S.E. 817; 103 S.C. 316; 88 S.E. 20; 85 S.C. 64, 67 S.E. 6; 126 S.C. 528, 120 S.E. 240; 119 S.C. 120, 111 S.E. 880; 185 S.C. 184, 193 S.E. 303; 90 S.C. 290, 73 S.E. 177; 72 S.C. 194, 51 S.E. 685. As to the pistol being wrongfully procured and notadmissible as evidence: 367 U.S. 643, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 81 S.Ct. 1684; (S.C.) 156 S.E.2d 326.

  4. State v. Morris

    243 S.C. 225 (S.C. 1963)   Cited 23 times
    In State v. Morris, 243 S.C. 225, 133 S.E.2d 744 (1963), the issue was mentioned but not decided since the jury's question was not viewed as seeking information regarding the possibility of parole.

    State v. Stephenson, 54 S.C. 234, 32 S.E. 305. In this connection see also State v. Stalvey, 146 S.C. 275, 143 S.E. 817; State v. Council, 129 S.C. 116, 123 S.E. 788; State v. Underwood, 127 S.C. 1, 120 S.E. 719. There is nothing in the record to even suggest any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in this connection.

  5. State v. Woods et al

    189 S.C. 281 (S.C. 1939)   Cited 38 times
    In State v. Woods, 189 S.Ct. 281, 1 S.E.2d 190 (1939), this Court had the opportunity to consider the forerunner of what is now Code § 16-91 (see Act of March 22, 1937, 40 St. at Large p. 137; § 16-91 Code of 1952) in reference to an issue quite similar to that presented in the instant case.

    A.F. Spigner, Solicitor, and C.T. Graydon, for respondent, cite: Continuance: 162 S.C. 509; 161 S.E., 177; 160 S.C. 429; 158 S.E., 809; 160 S.C. 301; 158 S.E., 685; 155 S.C. 495; 152 S.E., 738; 152 S.C. 17; 149 S.E., 348; 58 S.C. 335; 36 S.E., 706; 126 S.C. 149; 135 S.E., 774. As to change of venue: 86 S.C. 143; 168 S.C. 221; 167 S.E., 396. Jurors: 20 S.C. 441; 125 S.C. 281; 118 S.E., 620; 184 S.C. 290; 192 S.E., 265; 120 S.C. 526; 113 S.E., 335; 65 S.C. 321; 43 S.E., 677; 65 S.C. 242; 43 S.E., 671; 34 S.C. 49; 12 S.E., 657; 16 S.C. 453. Consideration of matters not in record: 106 S.C. 275; 91 S.E., 314; 129 S.C. 116; 123 S.E., 788; 33 S.C. 100; 11 S.E., 693; 58 S.C. 564; 37 S.E., 36. Charge: 34 S.C. 120; 13 S.E., 319; 114 S.C. 389; 102 S.E. 755, February 4, 1939.

  6. State v. McGee

    185 S.C. 184 (S.C. 1937)   Cited 23 times
    Holding duty to retreat applies on a public highway, "where all men have equal rights"

    Messrs. C.T. McDonald and L.M. Gasque, for appellant, cite: As to examination of witness regarding evidencegiven at inquest: 29 S.C. 201; 104 S.C. 353; 79 S.C. 144; 68 S.C. 425; 47 S.E., 676; 78 S.C. 90; 21 Cyc., 962. Prejudicial remarks: 177 S.C. 470; 147 S.C. 82; 81 S.C. 374; 139 S.C. 337. Messrs. G. Lloyd Ford, Solicitor and P.H. McEachin, for the State, cite: Exclusion of objectional evidence: 161 S.C. 362; 159 S.E., 838; 130 S.C. 358; 126 S.E., 142; 112 S.C. 43; 99 S.E., 751; 68 S.C. 425; 47 S.E., 676; 71 S.C. 136; 50 S.E., 551; 48 S.C. 249; 26 S.E., 567; 78 S.C. 83; 58 S.E., 974. As to rebuke of counsel for remarks: 174 S.C. 225; 177 S.E., 143; 61 S.C. 17; 39 S.E., 187; 126 S.C. 195; 118 S.E., 922; 82 S.C. 388; 64 S.E., 595; 87 S.C. 431; 69 S.E., 1075; 150 S.C. 341; 148 S.E., 184; 86 S.C. 370; 68 S.E., 684; 158 S.C. 251; 155 S.E., 409; 173 S.C. 161; 175 S.E., 277. Charge: 129 S.C. 116; 123 S.E., 788; 91 S.C. 235; 74 S.E., 502; 90 N.C. 1021; 114 S.C. 280; 103 S.E., 557; 88 S.C. 98; 70 S.E., 440; 88 S.C. 395; 70 S.E., 309; 104 S.C. 250; 88 S.E., 531; 107 S.C. 147; 116 S.E., 152; 136 S.C. 300; 119 S.E., 839; 130 S.C. 426; 126 S.E., 329; 151 S.C. 359; 149 S.E., 108; 137 S.C. 75; 134 S.E., 514; 137 S.C. 371; 135 S.E., 364; 182 S.C. 1; 188 S.E., 178; 86 S.C. 370; 68 S.E., 684. October 4, 1937.