State v. Burris

• Citation: 67 S.E. 306,85 S.C. 327
• Parties: STATE v. BURRIS.
• Decision Date: 21 March 1910
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

67 S.E. 306

85 S.C. 327

STATE v. BURRIS.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 21, 1910

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Anderson County; Chas G. Dantzler, Judge.

Watt Burris was convicted of burglary and larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.

R Pringle Clinkscales, for appellant. Procter Bonham, Sol., for the State.

HYDRICK J.

The defendant was convicted of burglary and larceny, and appeals on exceptions to the rulings of the circuit court: (1) In refusing his motion for a new trial, made on the ground that there was no evidence that the breaking and entering charged was done in the nighttime, and because the evidence that it was done in the nighttime was legally insufficient, in that it was circumstantial, and did not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis. (2) In sustaining the solicitor's objection to the following question, propounded to the prosecutor on cross-examination: "Instead of Watt Burris getting that $15, didn't you gamble it away?"

There was testimony that the prosecutor's dwelling house was broken and entered between 8 o'clock, after dark, one night in February and sunset the next day, and that a trunk therein was broken open, and money and other articles stolen from it. The room in which the trunk was had glass windows which made the use of artificial light unnecessary in the daytime. Burnt match sticks were found in and around the trunk, which were not there when the prosecutor left home. The defendant was arrested within two days after the burglary, and some of the stolen goods found on his person. Tracks corresponding in size to his shoe were found leading to the prosecutor's house and from it in the direction of the defendant's house, which was from a half to three-quarters of a mile away. When arrested, defendant made contradictory statements as to his whereabouts on the night of the burglary. He was seen about a mile from his home, and going in that direction, that night. His mother testified that he came home that night about 9 o'clock and went to bed half an hour later, and remained there the balance of the night; that they slept in different rooms, and he might have gone out during the night.

The foregoing statement of the testimony shows that the first two grounds of appeal cannot be sustained. Where there is any testimony to sustain a verdict, this court cannot review the action of a circuit judge in refusing a new trial in a law case.

There was...