State v. McKinney

89 S.E. 353, 104 S.C. 358, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 142
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided June 28, 1916·No. 9398·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

89 S.E. 353 (State v. McKinney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chantry v. Pettit Motor Co.
152 S.E. 753 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1930)