State v. Browning

Decided June 30, 1921

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1921-06-30

Before Ríos, J., Orangeburg, September term;, 1919, and Mauldin, J., Orangeburg, September term;, 1920. James P. Browning was indicted for the murder of Baurie P. Fairey, and upon conviction appeals. Subsequently a motion for a new trial was made before Judge T. J. Mauldin and a new trial ordered.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1921

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

The judgment of conviction affirmed, order granting new… · Decided 1921-06-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Chief Justice Gary:

¶1 I concur in reversing the order of Judge Mauldin, but dissent as to the reversal of the judgment on the ground of error in excusing the juror Jernigan.

•Mr. Justice Eraser concurs.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Status

Disposition: The judgment of conviction affirmed, order granting new…

Case posture

Disposition: The judgment of conviction affirmed, order granting new trial reversed.
Posture: Before RICE, J., Orangeburg, September term, 1919, and MAULDIN, J., Orangeburg, September term, 1920. The judgment of conviction affirmed, order granting new trial reversed.James P. Browning was indicted for the murder of Laurie P. Fairey, and upon conviction appeals. Subsequently a motion for a new trial was made before Judge T. J. Mauldin and a new trial ordered. From this order the State appeals. The order granting new trial, directed to be reported, follows: This is a motion for a new trial, the defendant having been convicted of murder, with a recommendation to mercy, at the September, 1919, term of the Court of General Sessions in and for the county of Orangeburg. The motion is based upon certain grounds, herewith attached and made a part of this record and marked Exhibit A. This matter turns mainly upon the alleged relationship between Mrs. Sophie Fairey, the mother of the deceased, and the Judge presiding at the trial, Hon. Hayne F. Rice. It is admitted by the State that the mother of the deceased is related in the sixth degree to the Judge who tried the case and that the deceased was related within the seventh degree to the trial Judge. I know that Judge Rice was not cognizant of this fact during the trial, and if he had been he would not have heard the case. It appears that the State was assisted in the prosecution of the case by Thomas M. Raysor, Esq., of the Orangeburg bar, but was employed by Mrs. Laurie D. Fairey, the widow of the deceased, and paid by her as administratrix of the estate of the deceased. This case impresses me with the conviction that my duty under the facts revealed before me is to grant a new trial, however much I regret the necessity therefor. It is therefore ordered: That a new trial be, and the same hereby is granted.

Source: CourtListener

Court

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Parallel citations

108 S.E 105