State v. McKinney

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. McKinney

89 S.E. 353, 104 S.C. 358, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 142

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 28, 1916

Docket9398

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 353 (State v. McKinney) 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.

Bluebook

State v. McKinney, 89 S.E. 353, 104 S.C. 358, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 142 (S.C. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

On trial of defendant for assault and battery with intent to kill, a witness, Brown, testified on the part of the State that he was working in the room in which the fight occurred; that he did not see the fight, but heard some one hollo, and looked and saw Smith, the prosecutor, holding his left side *359 and bending over; that he ran to him, but, before he did, saw the defendant going through the door; that when he got to Smith (and he said he was the first one to get to him), he asked him what was the matter; that he replied, “Oh, Brown, McKinney has cut me all to pieces;” that he asked, “What did you let him do that for?” and he replied, “He cut me before I knew what he was doing.” The single question is whether this declaration was properly admitted as part of the res gestae. The following cases show that it was: State v. Belcher, 13 S. C. 459; State v. McDaniel, 68 S. C. 304, 47 S. E. 384, 102 Am. St. Rep. 661; State v. Way, 76 S. C. 91, 56 S. E. 653; State v. Martin, 94 S. C. 92, 77 S. E. 721.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

On trial of defendant for assault and battery with intent to kill, a witness, Brown, testified on the part of the State that he was working in the room in which the fight occurred; that he did not see the fight, but heard some one hollo, and looked and saw Smith, the prosecutor, holding his left side *359 and bending over; that he ran to him, but, before he did, saw the defendant going through the door; that when he got to Smith (and he said he was the first one to get to him), he asked him what was the matter; that he replied, “Oh, Brown, McKinney has cut me all to pieces;” that he asked, “What did you let him do that for?” and he replied, “He cut me before I knew what he was doing.” The single question is whether this declaration was properly admitted as part of the res gestae. The following cases show that it was: State v. Belcher, 13 S. C. 459; State v. McDaniel, 68 S. C. 304, 47 S. E. 384, 102 Am. St. Rep. 661; State v. Way, 76 S. C. 91, 56 S. E. 653; State v. Martin, 94 S. C. 92, 77 S. E. 721.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 353, 104 S.C. 358, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mckinney-sc-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack