Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

106 S.C. 150

90 S.E 596

State v. Shuman

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided November 10, 1916

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1916-11-10

Before Prince, J., Hampton, February, 1916. J. K. Shuman, being convicted on manslaughter, appeals. Defendant’s first and second exceptions, referred to in the opinion, were as follows: (1) Because his Honor, the presiding Judge, erred in charging the jury as follows: “And you must be satisfied from the greater weight of the evidence that he did believe that it was necessary; that there was open to' him no other apparently reasonably safe way of saving himself.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1921

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1916-11-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Fraser,

¶1 concurring. 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.

¶2 We have a statute m 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.

/106/sc/150 · .json · Public domain