¶1 dissenting. I dissent. The Court was in error in admitting the testimony of Buckner as complained of in the exception. This evidence was highly prejudicial to the defendant. It was incompetent, as in no view of the case did it show the animus or motive of the killing, as it was long after the killing, and was only introduced to prejudice the defendant before the jury as a hard-hearted, callous man. A constable, when he arrests, and testifies, *261 can generally be relied on to materially assist the State and furnish some evidence highly prejudical to the defendant, and in a number of cases this evidence should be received with great caution.
105 S.C. 254
89 S.E 662
State v. Messervey
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided July 4, 1916
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1916-07-04
Before MooRE, J., Charleston, June, 1915. J. W. Messervey was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Appellant states his case as follows: “On July 6, 1909, the defendant, J. W. Messervey, shot one J. D. Altman at Ravenel, in Colleton county, from which wound the said J. D. Altman subsequently died in Charleston county. The same year an indictment for murder was found by the grand jury of Colleton county against J. W'.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1916-07-04
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1987
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →