State v. Solomon
Decision Date | 12 April 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 18330,18330 |
Citation | 14 A.L.R.3d 1277,141 S.E.2d 818,245 S.C. 550 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | , 14 A.L.R.3d 1277 The STATE, Respondent, v. Aaron SOLOMON, Appellant. |
A. Arthur Rosenblum, Charleston, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. J. C. Coleman, Asst. Atty. Gen. W. L. Pope, Columbia, for respondent.
The defendant, Aaron Solomon, has appealed from a conviction of operating his business, known as the Sam Solomon Company, on Sunday in violation of Act No. 850 of the 1962 Acts of the General Assembly, 52 Stat. 2134. The issues to be decided concern the sufficiency of the indictment under which the defendant was convicted, the constitutionality of the foregoing statute, the validity of a city ordinance which the defendant claimed made the operation of his business on Sunday lawful, and alleged error in the charge to the jury. The defendant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction.
The testimony describes the defendant as the manager of the Sam Solomon Company, a large general merchandise store on East Bay Street in Charleston, South Carolina. The store covers about a half city block and carries a large variety of items for sale to the consumer. The defendant is an Orthodox Jew and does not open his business on Saturday. Since adherence to his religious beliefs requires that he observe Saturday as the Sabbath, the defendant claims the right to operate his business on all other days of the week including Sunday. On Sunday, May 13, 1962, the defendant was operating his business 'as usual' and, at the time of the visit of the officers to his store, there were approximately forty to sixty customers present, with eleven clerks and the defendant on duty. Purchases of various articles were being made by the customers, one particular purchase consisting of two baby chairs (described in the indictment as baby strollers), a ladies slip, and a white shirt. As a result of the operation of his business on May 13, 1962, the defendant was indicted for violating the foregoing statute regulating work on Sunday.
Prior to the adoption of the statute in question, the general statutory prohibition in this State against working on Sunday was contained in Section 64-2 of the 1962 Code of Laws, which provided:
'No tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer or other person whatsoever, shall do or exercise any wordly labor, business, or work of his ordinary calling upon Sunday or any part thereof, work of necessity or charity only excepted, and every person of the age of fifteen years or upwards offending in the premises shall, for every such offense, forfeit the sum of one dollar.'
At the 1962 Session of the General Assembly the quoted provisions of Section 64-2 were repealed and, in lieu thereof, a new statute was enacted relating to Sunday work. Act No. 850, supra. In view of the broad attack made by the defendant upon its provisions, this statute, with the section numbers under which it appears in the 1964 Supplement of the 1962 Code of Laws, is set forth in full:
The foregoing statute became effective on April 7, 1962.
At the outset of the trial the defendant moved unsuccessfully to quash the indictment upon the ground that it was insufficient to fully inform him of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, in violation of Article 1, Section 18, of the South Carolina Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The defendant contends that the indictment was fatally deficient in that it (1) failed to negate all of the specific exceptions enumerated in Sections 64-2.1 and 64-2.2 of the statute and (2) did not set forth the particular items allegedly sold or offered for sale nor the name of the consumer to whom the sale or offer to sell was made.
It is well settled that an indictment is sufficient if the offense is stated with sufficient certainty and particularity to enable the court to know what judgment to pronounce, the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer, and an acquittal or conviction may be pleaded in bar to any subsequent prosecution. State v. McIntire et al., 221 S.C. 504, 71 S.E.2d 410.
The offenses under the Sunday closing law are created and defined by Section 64-2. Three separate offenses are created: (1) engaging in worldly work, labor, or business of one's ordinary calling on Sunday; (2) selling or offering to sell, publicly or privately or by telephone, at retail or wholesale to the consumer any goods, wares or merchandise on Sunday; (3) employing others to engage in work, labor, business or selling or offering to sell any goods, weres or merchandise on Sunday. This section excepts 'work of necessity or charity' from the foregoing prohibitions, and is followed by Section 64-2.1 and 64-2.2 which contain a list of permitted activities and sales and a list of merchandise specifically prohibited from sale on Sunday.
The indictment in this case contained two counts. The first charged that the defendant unlawfully engaged on May 13th, 1962, the first day of the week, in worldly work, labor and business of his ordinary calling, not constituting work of necessity or charity, by selling to consumers, at retail or wholesale, goods, wares and merchandise which are not permitted to be sold on the 1st day of the week, in violation of Section 64-2 of the 1962 Code of Laws, as amended.
The second count of the indictment charged that the defendant unlawfully engaged on May 13th, 1962, the first day of the week, in worldly work, labor, and business of his ordinary calling, not a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gamble Skogmo, Inc.
...76. Other cases concerning this issue are: Wade v. City and County of San Francisco, 82 Cal.App.2d 337, 186 P.2d 181; State v. Solomon, 245 S.C. 550, 141 S.E.2d 818, appeal dismissed 382 U.S. 204, 86 S.Ct. 396, 15 L.Ed.2d 270. As was said by the Chief Judge of the United States Court of App......
-
Opinion of the Justices
...Id., 524, 81 S.Ct. 1188. See also, state ex rel. Heck's, Inc. v. Gates, 149 W.Va. 421, 445-450, 141 S.E.2d 369; State v. Solomon, 245 S.C. 550, 571, 141 S.E.2d 818; Gem Stores, Inc. v. O'Brien, (Mo.) 374 S.W.2d 109, 117. Similar considerations govern the application of the provisions of our......
-
State v. Spartan's Industries, Inc., B--1255
...against attack for vagueness. Charles Stores Company, Inc. v. Tucker, 263 N.C. 710, 410 S.E.2d 370 (1965); State v. Solomon, 245 S.C. 550, 141 S.E.2d 818, 14 A.L.R.3d 1277 (1965); State ex rel. Eagleton v. McQueen, 378 S.W.2d 449 (Mo.Sup.Ct.1964); Two Guys From Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. M......
-
Whitney Stores, Inc. v. Summerford
...A conviction was secured, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of South Carolina, which affirmed, State v. Solomon, 245 S.C. 550, 141 S.E.2d 818, 14 A.L.R.3d 1277, primarily on the basis of McGowan v. State of Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961); Two Guys f......