90 S.E. 596 | S.C. | 1916
Lead Opinion
November 10, 1916. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The defendant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to five years imprisonment. He appealed upon four exceptions, the first and second of which will be reported.
First Exception. The case of State v. Long,
Second Exception. In Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Moog,
The foregoing is a correct statement of the rule, and, therefore, there was error on the part of his Honor, the Circuit Judge. Unless, however, the error was prejudicial, the judgment will not be reversed. It appears from the record that the case was submitted to the jury at 5 o'clock, and that they were in the jury room until *154 about 11 o'clock a. m. next day, when the verdict was rendered.
Testimony of the jurors as to whether the charge of his Honor, the Circuit Judge, had the effect of coercing them into finding a verdict would not have been proper. State v.Kelley,
The appellant's attorneys did not argue the third and fourth exceptions, and, therefore, they will not be considered.
It is the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.
MR. JUSTICE GAGE concurs in the opinion announced by the CHIEF JUSTICE.
Concurrence Opinion
I agree with the Chief Justice that the charge was calculated to coerce the jury, and, therefore, there should be a new trial. I think, however, that the time spent in the jury room is immaterial. If the jury believed that an agreement was necessary, then I think it was the part of wisdom to agree at once.
We have a statute in this State that provides that if the jury return a second time without having agreed upon a verdict, they cannot be sent out again without their consent. I do not think the power of the trial Judge is plenary. *155