State v. Gunter
This text of 119 S.E. 844 (State v. Gunter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
The facts are sufficiently stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Fraser. A majority of the Court are of opinion that the charge of the presiding Judge, in reference to the defense of protecting one’s castle (although in an interrogative form), and to the relations of the defendant *376 with the woman in the case, was calculated to prejudice the jury against the defendant and constituted reversible error. It is not necessary so to decide in this case, but we are not prepared to hold that a man, under the circumstances stated, is deprived of the right of self-defense, unless, as in State v. Emerson, 78 S. C., 83 ; 58 S. E., 974, his presence there was reasonably calculated to provoke a difficulty with the deceased, who was charged with the duty of protecting the woman.
The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and that the case be remanded to that Court for a new trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
119 S.E. 844, 126 S.C. 375, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gunter-sc-1923.