State V Clardy

73 S.C. 340 (1906)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On the 19th day of March 1905, Chris Herron received a pistol shot wound from a pistol fired while in the hands of Coogler Clardy (D), from which he died about two weeks later. D claimed that the shooting was done accidentally while he and the deceased were engaged in a friendly struggle over the possession of the pistol, while Herron was trying to take the pistol from D’s pocket, with no intention on the part of either to fire the pistol. A party of negroes were engaged in gambling with cards and drinking liquor pretty freely. Herron and Jim Fuller were partners playing against Ds, Dick Davis, and George Fuller. During the progress of the game, Davis charged Jim Fuller with making a misdeal, and a dispute arose. This quieted down and they began to play again. A message was sent by defendant Dick Davis to D, who was some two hundred yards away at the home of Addie Henderson, some witnesses saying that the message was, 'Come up here, these damn negroes are trying to run over me;' others said that the message was, 'Come on and bring my liquor.' Another misdeal was charged and the game ended in a dispute between Jim Fuller and Dick Davis, in which Dick Davis attempted to strike him with a small walking stick, but Jim Fuller got out of his reach. D arrived on the ground with his hat off, and, as some of the witnesses testified, with his pistol in his hand; others, however, said his pistol was not in his hand when he arrived. Eventually, D and Herron got in a scuffle. P showed that Herron was shot by D, who claimed that the shooting was done accidentally while he and the victim were engaged in a friendly struggle over the possession of a handgun. One of the witnesses testified that he did not see any of the other defendants do anything in connection with the shooting. The trial court charged the jury: 'It is incumbent upon the State to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, not only that the defendant killed the deceased, but that he did it intentionally, with a criminal intent, before you can find that he is guilty with reference to the killing. Now, that criminal intent usually leads a person intentionally or voluntarily to do the act complained of, and a criminal intent is attributed to a person who even does a grossly careless act; the law presumes that he intended to do what he actually did do and if he did an act that was grossly careless, and therefore unlawful, the law imputes the unlawfulness of his gross carelessness to the result of it, and also imputes the intent to be grossly careless, and therefore, to act unlawfully, and so make the criminal intent, which is necessary to make out a case of guilty of crime in any case.' Ds were convicted and appealed.