State v. Bethune
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before DeVorE, J., Manning, January, 1916. Willie ■ Bethune was convicted of murder, and b.eing refused a new trial, he appeals. submit: If it had been known to the trial jury: (1) That the witness, McFadden, had ’declared a different state of facts almost immediately before he testified on the stand, the jury could not have given his testimony credit.
Read the full summary
Before DeVorE, J., Manning, January, 1916. Willie ■ Bethune was convicted of murder, and b.eing refused a new trial, he appeals. submit: If it had been known to the trial jury: (1) That the witness, McFadden, had ’declared a different state of facts almost immediately before he testified on the stand, the jury could not have given his testimony credit. (2) If it had appeared to the jury that it was ■known to the State’s assistant prosecuting officer that the testimony of McFadden as given on the stand was wholly inconsistent with and contradictory to his statement of facts confidentially…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.
This is an appeal from an order refusing a motion for a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence.
On the 13th day of January, 1916, Mr. L,. D. Jennings; an attorney at law, of Sumter, S. C., made an affidavit stating the following facts:
“That he was of counsel for the prosecution in the case of the State against Willie Bethune, defendant; that he talked with the witness, Alfred McFadden, before the trial, in a preliminary investigation of what his testimony would consist of. The said witness, Alfred McFadden, made a…
2Cited by10 opinions
- State v. FrancisSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1929
- State v. MayfieldSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1959
- State v. BighamSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- State v. PittmanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- State v. LewisSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.