State v. HowellState v. Howell
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Simpson
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Simpson.Thе question upon which this appeal turns is, Avhеther his honor, the Circuit Judge, transcended in his сharge the constitutional limit prescribеd in art. IV., section 26, of the Constitution, Avhich provides: “That judges shall not charge juries in respect to matters of fact, but may state the testimony and declare the law.” We have construed this section to mean (State v. Jenkins, 21 S. C., 595; Woody v. Dean, 24 S. C., 503), that while triаl judges may state the testimony and so arrange it as to enable the jury to apply it to *255the legal points involved, yet that thеy cannot convey to the jury, either expressly or impliedly, their opinion as tо the force and effect of said tеstimony upon any question of fact at issuе between the parties. In other words, thаt the jury must be left perfectly free in reaching a conclusion upon the testimоny introduced, untrammelled by any intimation from the judge as to whether a certain fact at issue has been proved or not. Whether this is a wise provision or not, and whether it best subserves the interests of the country in thе administration of justice or not, is not a quеstion to be considered by the courts. It is in thе constitution, the organic law of the government, and it cannot be disregarded.
In this сase the three questions of fact at issue were (as stated by his honor in his charge), 1st. Did the defendant, Howell, and the other defendant, Hipp, being there and acting with him, strike Mr. Wallace over the head with a сlub ? 2d. Was the club a deadly weapon ? And 3d. Wаs there any evidence of justificatiоn ? The entire charge is in the “Case,” and shоuld be reported. Without specifying particularly the portions of the chargе in which we think his honor transcended the constitutional boundary, ‘we think it is sufficient to say, that uрon the first contested fact mentioned, and also upon the third, his honor pretty clearly intimated his opinion- in the earnestness of the charge, that the defendаnts struck the blow complained of, and thаt they had no cause for the violenсe used ; and, further, that Wallace’s explanation of his conduct was worthy of belief, and should control. Under these cirсumstances we think that the defendants are entitled to a new trial. And to this end,
It is the judgment of this court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed.