State v. Atkins
| Decision Date | 06 December 1944 |
| Docket Number | 15694. |
| Citation | 32 S.E.2d 372,205 S.C. 450 |
| Parties | STATE v. ATKINS. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
S N. Burts and C. Y. Brown, both of Spartanburg, for appellant.
Sam R. Watt, of Spartanburg, for respondent.
The appellant, Elbert Atkins, was jointly indicted with his brother, Maas Atkins, for larceny of one 1941 V-8 Ford Coach and a pair of handcuffs, the property of H. H. Hatchett, and for receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen. Appellant was convicted of receiving the automobile, knowing it to have been stolen, and he appeals. The defendant Maas Atkins was acquitted.
Upon the call of the case, the defendants moved for severance and a separate trial upon the ground that the defenses of the two defendants would be altogether different and inconsistent that testimony to be offered by the prosecution would be admissible and relevant as to one, but inadmissible and incompetent as against the other; and that the facts which affect one would not involve the other.
Counsel for the appellant concede the general rule that a motion for severance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Mathis, 174 S.C. 344, 177 S.E. 318; State v. Francis, 152 S.C 17, 149 S.E. 348, 70 A.L.R. 1133.
But in this case they allege that the discretion vested in the Court was erroneously exercised.
In State v. Mathis, supra, and State v. Francis, supra, the same grounds were presented for severance as are advanced here, and the Court refused to interfere with the ruling of the trial Judge.
Upon the authority of the above-cited cases, in the light of this record, we are unable to find any abuse of the discretion vested in the trial Court in denying the motion for severance and a separate trial.
The next assignment of error deals with the admission of certain evidence with reference to a black Ford coupe which was stolen from the Spartan Motor Company by Donald Mauney and Alvin Mason, and sold for $30 to Guy Atkins, a brother of appellant. It is contended that this testimony had no connection with the car alleged to have been stolen or received by defendants, Elbert Atkins and Maas Atkins; and that proof of the theft and sale of the Ford coupe by the admitted thieves, and the selling of it to a third party, could in no way tend to prove that the defendants in this case knew or had any guilty knowledge of the theft of the car charged in the indictment.
A brief review of the evidence will throw light upon the situation presented by this assignment of error:
On the night of November 10, 1943, about 9 o'clock, the 1941 V-8 Ford coach mentioned in the indictment was stolen from H. H. Hatchett, a member of the rural police force of Spartanburg County, by Alvin Mason and Donald Mauney, youths nineteen years of age. At the time of the theft, the car was parked on East Main Street in the City of Spartanburg. Mr. Hatchett testified that when he left his car the ignition switch was locked, but the doors were not locked. He possessed duplicate keys: one remained in his pocket, and the other was left in the keyhole of the glove compartment; and in the glove compartment he had left a pair of handcuffs.
The larceners, Alvin Mason and Donald Mauney, were offered as witnesses for the prosecution. They admitted the theft, and said that upon stealing the car they drove directly to the Atkins garage, located in the vicinity of Campobello, in the Northwestern part of Spartanburg County, for the purpose of selling it to the appellant, Elbert Atkins. Upon reaching the garage they went upstairs to a room which Guy Atkins occupied as his home, and they spent the time in drinking until Elbert Atkins arrived. When he came in they told him that they had a car outside for sale. Elbert went down, and after inspecting it agreed to purchase it for the sum of $100. But it appears from the testimony of the larceners that he paid them only $40. According to the State's evidence, the car when stolen was worth $1050. The two boys gave Elbert no bill of sale for the car, and after the sale Elbert, in his own car, drove Mason and Mauney back to the City of Spartanburg.
The two boys testified that about three hours prior to the sale of the Hatchett car, they had been to the Atkins garage for the purpose of selling to Guy Atkins the black Ford coupe stolen from the Spartan Motor Company, to which reference has already been made; and that upon this occasion they saw Elbert Atkins.
It was at this point that counsel for the appellant objected to the relevancy of any evidence relating to the Ford coupe.
Appellant stated over objection, upon cross-examination, that he knew before he bought the Hatchett car, that these boys had brought the Spartan Motor Company car to the Atkins garage and had sold it to his brother Guy on the night of November 10th; and that later that night he bought from them the Hatchett car. We might say here, however, by way of parenthesis, that throughout other portions of his testimony, Elbert Atkins contended that he bought only the body of the Hatchett car, and that the boys had brought this body to his garage upon a truck.
When later the sheriff of the county and his officers, together with Mr. Hatchett, made a search of the Atkins garage, they found the body of Mr. Hatchett's car on another chassis, and with a different steering wheel. Upon it was a changed license number, placed there by appellant,--a dealer's license number, X-2229,--which was used by appellant in his business as a second-hand car dealer. The steering wheel and bumpers had been taken from the body and were found in the garage. A short-wave radio had been taken from the body, but this was not found. The tires were missing; also the tools. And different seat cushions had been substituted for the ones which were in the car when it was stolen.
The three brothers, Guy, Elbert, and Blake Atkins, were the owners of the garage. The defendant, Maas Atkins, whose initials were M. C. Atkins, lived at Tryon, North Carolina was also engaged in the sale of used cars, and made trips back and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. White
... ... is your duty to bring in a verdict of 'Guilty." ... This ... charge is in accord with the well established law of this ... State. State v. Rountree, 80 S.C. 387, 61 S.E. 1072, ... 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 833; State v. Simon 126 S.C. 437, ... 120 S.E. 230; State v. Atkins, 205 S.C. 450, 32 ... S.E.2d 372 ... [211 ... S.C. 280] It may be preferable to use the words 'firm ... belief' as synonymous with 'knowledge,' but in ... this case we cannot conceive of the jury having been misled ... by the use of the word 'believe' in connection with ... ...
-
State v. McDowell
... ... charge be made. In the absence of which, where the State does ... not rely wholly upon circumstantial evidence, it is not ... incumbent upon the trial Judge to charge the law pertaining ... [212 S.C. 75] thereto. State v. Rickenbaker, 187 ... S.C. 448, 198 S.E. 43; State v. Atkins, 205 S.C ... 450, 32 S.E.2d 372; State v. Baker, 208 S.C. 195, 37 ... S.E.2d 525; State v. Gatlin, 208 S.C. 414, 38 S.E.2d ... It is ... the opinion of this Court that all ... ...
-
State v. McCracken
...such discretion. State v. Mathis, 174 S.C. 344, 177 S.E. 318; State v. Francis, 152 S.C. 17, 149 S.E. 348, 70 A.L.R. 1133; State v. Atkins, 205 S.C. 450, 32 S.E.2d 372. the exceptions 1 and 2 are overruled. The appellant McCracken and one Howard Conner, on the afternoon of September 18, 194......