State v. Adcock
Decision Date | 13 June 1940 |
Docket Number | 15100. |
Citation | 9 S.E.2d 730,194 S.C. 234 |
Parties | STATE v. ADCOCK. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
J K. Owens and N. W. Edens, both of Bennettsville, for appellant.
Sidney S. Tison, Sol., of Bennettsville, for respondent.
The appellant was indicted, at the Court of General Sessions for Marlboro County which convened February 12, 1939, on two indictments; one for violation of the liquor laws and one for maintaining a nuisance. On these charges the defendant had demanded preliminary hearings which were not held because the State's witnesses had not appeared. However, the cases were sent up by the Magistrate indictments given out and true bills found. At the same term of the Court an indictment was given out on information by the Solicitor charging the appellant that he did "keep on his premises and operate and permit to be kept on his premises a slot and vending machine pertaining to a game of chance on January 14, 1939".
When the case pertaining to the slot machine was called, counsel for appellant moved for continuance on the ground that the two cases for violating the liquor laws and for maintaining a nuisance were pending and they were ready to go to trial on one or both of them; that on these cases counsel had demanded preliminary hearings but the Magistrate had not got the witnesses together and hence the preliminary could not be held, nevertheless, they were ready to go to trial. Counsel further stated that he had had no time in which to prepare a defense in this case and asked for continuance until the next term of Court. The motion for continuance was refused. Thereupon the defendant entered a plea of guilty in the following language:
This appeal followed, predicated upon exceptions which charge the trial Judge with error in not allowing defendant time to make a showing or to produce witnesses to show mitigating circumstances; error in calling the case based upon an indictment without any warrant having been issued by the Magistrate. Error in not requiring the Solicitor to go to trial on the other two cases, of which defendant had notice was ready for trial. Error in receiving statements from the sheriff and others, in regard to two other indictments; and it was an abuse of discretion in regard to the slot machine when the sheriff was not present when the machine was taken. Error in not exercising his discretion under the circumstances and ordering the defendant to trial on the other two indictments before proceeding with the case that was called and then passing sentence on defendant on his plea of guilty, as though the defendant was guilty of the charges in the other two indictments.
Counsel for appellant in their argument stress the point that it was error and abuse of discretion not to grant the motion for continuance. They further urge that it was error to receive statements concerning two other indictments to which defendant was prepared to enter a plea of not guilty. They argue, as to the last named position, that while it was proper for the trial Judge to inquire into the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense to which the defendant had pleaded guilty, to wit, to having in possession a slot machine, it was not proper for him to hear statements in regard to two other indictments, to which he had pleaded not guilty and announced ready for trial, and to also receive statements in regard to the other charges in the indictment, to wit, the operating of the slot machine.
It must be borne in mind that it appears from the transcript of record that counsel for appellant introduced the giving of statements to the trial Judge when the Judge came to sentence the defendant on his plea of guilty. Counsel said: "*** that the Sheriff of Marlboro County had sometime before started to enforce the law against machines such as this; that the machine in question, which had a considerable amount of cash in it, was placed in a case or closet and locked up and that when the officers went to the place of business of the defendant and they asked him if he had a slot machine he told them that he did and gave them the key to the case or closet in which the machine was locked up; that the defendant told the officers he had locked the machine up when notified by the sheriff, in the place it was found, and that it had not been operated since that time and he was holding it until the owner of the machine would come and get it and he could get the money out of it, amounting to over twenty-five dollars. ***."
It appears that counsel opened wide the door for the presentation to the Court of the facts touching appellant's connection with the slot machine.
In support of their allegations that the trial Judge abused his discretion, counsel for appellant referred to the cases of State v. Edwards, 86 S.C. 215, 68 S.E. 524; State v. Kenny, 77 S.C. 236, 57 S.E. 859; State v. Murphy, 48 S.C. 1, 25 S.E. 43. We have examined these cases and find that they are authority for the position that this Court will not interfere with the trial Judge's exercise of his discretion, unless there is manifest abuse of it; and in those cases the Court found no such abuse. The same is true also of the cases of State v. Rabens, 79 S.C. 542, 60 S.E. 442, 1110, and State v. Reeder, 79 S.C. 139, 60 S.E. 434, 435, 14 Ann.Cas. 968. The case of State v. Reeder can give no comfort to appellant. There, the opinion was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Pope. The defendant was tried for murder and convicted of manslaughter. Judge Pope's opinion states:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Brandon
... ... the trial Judge in open Court, in the presence of the ... defendant, to inquire into any relevant facts in aggravation ... [43 S.E.2d 453.] ... or mitigation of punishment. State v. Reeder, 79 ... S.C. 139, 60 S.E. 434, 14 Ann.Cas. 968; State v ... Adcock, 194 S.C. 234, 9 S.E.2d 730. The record does not ... reveal whether this was done or, if so, the information ... given. It will, therefore, be assumed that the circumstances ... before the trial Judge were such as to justify the sentence ... Let ... this order be reported and ... ...
-
State v. Bodie
... ... imposed upon a defendant, it is proper for the trial judge in ... open court, in the presence of the defendant, to inquire into ... any relevant facts in aggravation or mitigation of ... punishment. State v. Brandon, 210 S.C. 495, 43 ... S.E.2d 449, 452; State v. Adcock, 194 S.C. 234, 9 ... S.E.2d 730; State v. Reeder, 79 S.C. 139, 60 S.E ... 434, 14 Ann.Cas. 968. And see to the same effect State v ... Rickenbaker, 138 S.C. 24, 135 S.E. 651 ... Statements ... coming under the ban of hearsay evidence would not be ... admissible under the ... ...
-
State v. Nesmith
...record does not disclose any sufficient showing for such action. For cases bearing upon the question under discussion, see State v. Adcock, 194 S.C. 234, 9 S.E.2d 730; State v. Flintroy, 178 S.C. 89, 182 S.E. State v. Mason, 115 S.C. 214, 105 S.E. 286; State v. Crosby, 108 S.C. 315, 94 S.E.......