Moorer v. MacDougall

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation142 S.E.2d 46,245 S.C. 633
Decision Date11 May 1965
PartiesLouis MOORER, Petitioner, v. Ellis C. MacDOUGALL, Director, South Carolina State Board of Corrections, Respondent.

Page 46

142 S.E.2d 46
245 S.C. 633
Louis MOORER, Petitioner,
v.
Ellis C. MacDOUGALL, Director, South Carolina State Board of
Corrections, Respondent.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
May 11, 1965.

[245 S.C. 634]

Page 47

Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, F. Henderson Moore, Benjamin L. Cook. Jr., Charleston, for petitioner.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Everett N. Brandon, Columbia, Sol. Julian S. Wolfe, Orangeburg, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant Moorer is under a death sentence and this matter is before us on

Page 48

motion for a stay of execution pending his application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Common Pleas Court of Richland County, South Carolina, upon the several grounds hereinafter considered.

Moorer was tried and convicted at the April 1962 term of the General Sessions Court for Dorchester County, South [245 S.C. 635] Carolina, of the crime of rape and the death sentence imposed. The foregoing judgment was appealed to this court and was affirmed. State v. Moorer, 241 S.C. 487, 129 S.E.2d 330. The defendant then served notice of intention to petition the United States Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari and was granted a stay of execution by this court for such purpose. Just prior to the expiration of this stay, the defendant formally abandoned his declared intention to petition the United States Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari and, instead, petitioned the Honorable John Grimball, Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina, on May 14, 1963, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. A further stay of execution was granted by this court to allow the defendant to prosecute his application for such Writ in the State court. Upon this petition, testimony was heard by Judge Grimball and an order passed by him on May 17, 1963, denying the Writ. On August 30, 1963 Judge Grimball held a supplemental hearing to determine if further grounds existed for the issuance of the Writ under the petition before him and found that none existed. Appeal was taken from both orders of Judge Grimball to this court and affirmed by a unanimous opinion on March 30, 1964. Moorer v. State of South Carolina, 244 S.C. 102, 135 S.E.2d 713. The defendant thereafter filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court and a further stay of execution was granted by this court for such purpose. This petition was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 12, 1964, 379 U.S. 860, 85 S.Ct. 119, 13 L.Ed.2d 63, and a reconsideration thereof subsequently denied.

Thereafter, defendant filed a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, 240 F.Supp. 531. We denied a stay of execution of such purpose, but a stay was granted by order of the Honorable Robert W. Hemphill, a Judge of said Court on December 1, 1964. The aforesaid District Court, by order dated April 13, 1965, relinquished jurisdiction[245 S.C. 636] of the cause and vacated its previous stay of execution for the purpose of permitting the defendant to again file a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the State courts. Upon the delivery to the Clerk of this court of a certified copy of the foregoing order of the District Court, and in the absence of any notification of further proceedings by the defendant, an order was issued directing that the sentence previously imposed upon the defendant be executed on May 14, 1965.

Following the direction from this court that the sentence imposed upon Moorer be carried out, the present motion for a stay of execution was served, to which there is attached a copy of a petition by the defendant, dated March 31, 1965, for a Writ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Drayton v. Evatt, No. 23852
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 9, 1993
    ...by the defendant. Once we discern there has been no error, that determination becomes binding on the defendant. See Moorer v. MacDougall, 245 S.C. 633, 142 S.E.2d 46 Under the doctrine enunciated in Simmons v. State, 264 S.C. 417, 215 S.E.2d 883 (1975), errors which can be reviewed on direc......
  • State v. Allen, No. 20167
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 11, 1976
    ...188 S.E.2d 379; State v. Atkinson, 253 S.C. 531, 172 S.E.2d 111; State v. Gamble, 249 S.C. 605, 155 S.E.2d 916; and Moorer v. MacDougall, 245 S.C. 633, 142 S.E.2d 46. The Appellant relies heavily upon the fact that the language of Article 1, Section 15 differs from that of Article 1, Sectio......
  • Smith v. South Carolina Dept. of Mental Health, No. 2755
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 8, 1997
    ...that the employer could be relieved of its payment obligation if it offered or procured a suitable job for the employee. Id. at 632, 142 S.E.2d at 46. [329 S.C. 497] Contrary to Smith's argument, we do not believe that the passing reference in Coleman to the employer's ability to terminate ......
  • Moorer v. State of South Carolina, No. 10526.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • September 26, 1966
    ...chosen were those in which there had been any significant number of executions for rape in recent years. 1 See Moorer v. MacDougall, 245 S.C. 633, 142 S.E.2d 46 (1965); Moorer v. State, 244 S.C. 102, 135 S.E.2d 713, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 860, 85 S.Ct. 119, 13 L. Ed.2d 63 (1964); State v. M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Drayton v. Evatt, No. 23852
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 9, 1993
    ...by the defendant. Once we discern there has been no error, that determination becomes binding on the defendant. See Moorer v. MacDougall, 245 S.C. 633, 142 S.E.2d 46 Under the doctrine enunciated in Simmons v. State, 264 S.C. 417, 215 S.E.2d 883 (1975), errors which can be reviewed on direc......
  • State v. Allen, No. 20167
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 11, 1976
    ...188 S.E.2d 379; State v. Atkinson, 253 S.C. 531, 172 S.E.2d 111; State v. Gamble, 249 S.C. 605, 155 S.E.2d 916; and Moorer v. MacDougall, 245 S.C. 633, 142 S.E.2d 46. The Appellant relies heavily upon the fact that the language of Article 1, Section 15 differs from that of Article 1, Sectio......
  • Smith v. South Carolina Dept. of Mental Health, No. 2755
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 8, 1997
    ...that the employer could be relieved of its payment obligation if it offered or procured a suitable job for the employee. Id. at 632, 142 S.E.2d at 46. [329 S.C. 497] Contrary to Smith's argument, we do not believe that the passing reference in Coleman to the employer's ability to terminate ......
  • Moorer v. State of South Carolina, No. 10526.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • September 26, 1966
    ...chosen were those in which there had been any significant number of executions for rape in recent years. 1 See Moorer v. MacDougall, 245 S.C. 633, 142 S.E.2d 46 (1965); Moorer v. State, 244 S.C. 102, 135 S.E.2d 713, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 860, 85 S.Ct. 119, 13 L. Ed.2d 63 (1964); State v. M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT