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.
, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.