State v. O'Neall

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. O'Neall

60 S.E. 1121, 79 S.C. 571, 1908 S.C. LEXIS 103

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 10, 1908

Docket6854

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 60 S.E. 1121 (State v. O'Neall) 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. O'Neall, 60 S.E. 1121, 79 S.C. 571, 1908 S.C. LEXIS 103 (S.C. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Pope.

The defendant, Anna O’Neall, was indicted along with Sallie Mcjunkin and Wesley W. Eyon, at the May term of the Court of General Sessions for Greenville County. She was tried before 'his Honor, George W. Gage, and a jury on the charge of manslaughter, causing- the death of her infant child, whose body was recovered from, a well on the premises where she was living. With the consent of the solicitor the defendants S'allie Mcjunkin and Wesley W. Eyon were found not guilty.

It hardly seems worth while to pursue with great care and particularity circumstances of suspicion; there was no testimony that the child had ever breathed or was alive at the time of its birth. The surgeon who' made the postmortem examination was careful to state that he could not tell that the child had ever been alive. No other witnesses testified as to the child’s condition at birth. The defendant, its mother, when examined as a witness, was unable to state the child’s condition, although she admitted that she was the mother of the child.

As is decided in the case of State v. Wimberly, in 3 McCord, 190, syllabus: “In indictments for murder and manslaughter it is indispensably necessary to state that the death ensued in consequence of the act of the prisoner.” *573 And as it is stated in 1st Wharton’s Criminal Law (8th ed.), page 336: “In cases of infanticide it must be shown that the child was born alive, and for this purpose an independent circulation is necessary.” State v. Winthrop, 43 Iowa, 519. Again, on page 416 of the same volume, it is said: “But it must be proven that the child had been bom in the world in a living state; the fact that it had breathed for a moment is not conclusive proof thereof.”

The testimony in the case at bar, and the citation of authorities hereinbefore made, render this Court unwilling to confirm a verdict of guilty of manslaughter by the jury; however painful and distressing child murder is felt to be, yet prudence requires, and humanity also¡ demands, that a conviction of the poor mother is too dreadful to be rested alone upon suspicion.

We, therefore, 'hold that there was error in the judgment against the defendant; and hold that the judgment against her should be upset.

It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

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. Chief Justice Pope.

The defendant, Anna O’Neall, was indicted along with Sallie Mcjunkin and Wesley W. Eyon, at the May term of the Court of General Sessions for Greenville County. She was tried before 'his Honor, George W. Gage, and a jury on the charge of manslaughter, causing- the death of her infant child, whose body was recovered from, a well on the premises where she was living. With the consent of the solicitor the defendants S'allie Mcjunkin and Wesley W. Eyon were found not guilty.

It hardly seems worth while to pursue with great care and particularity circumstances of suspicion; there was no testimony that the child had ever breathed or was alive at the time of its birth. The surgeon who' made the postmortem examination was careful to state that he could not tell that the child had ever been alive. No other witnesses testified as to the child’s condition at birth. The defendant, its mother, when examined as a witness, was unable to state the child’s condition, although she admitted that she was the mother of the child.

As is decided in the case of State v. Wimberly, in 3 McCord, 190, syllabus: “In indictments for murder and manslaughter it is indispensably necessary to state that the death ensued in consequence of the act of the prisoner.” *573 And as it is stated in 1st Wharton’s Criminal Law (8th ed.), page 336: “In cases of infanticide it must be shown that the child was born alive, and for this purpose an independent circulation is necessary.” State v. Winthrop, 43 Iowa, 519. Again, on page 416 of the same volume, it is said: “But it must be proven that the child had been bom in the world in a living state; the fact that it had breathed for a moment is not conclusive proof thereof.”

The testimony in the case at bar, and the citation of authorities hereinbefore made, render this Court unwilling to confirm a verdict of guilty of manslaughter by the jury; however painful and distressing child murder is felt to be, yet prudence requires, and humanity also¡ demands, that a conviction of the poor mother is too dreadful to be rested alone upon suspicion.

We, therefore, 'hold that there was error in the judgment against the defendant; and hold that the judgment against her should be upset.

It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 S.E. 1121, 79 S.C. 571, 1908 S.C. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-oneall-sc-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack