State v. Bass, No. 18045

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtTAYLOR
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Sam BASS, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 18045
Decision Date01 April 1963

Page 481

130 S.E.2d 481
242 S.C. 193
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Sam BASS, Appellant.
No. 18045.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
April 1, 1963.

Page 482

[242 S.C. 194] John Bolt Culbertson, Greenville, for appellant.

Robert L. Kilgo, Sol., Darlington Clarence T. Goolsby, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbia, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Chief Justice.

The appellant was tried and convicted in the Court of General Sessions for Marlboro County at the July, 1962, Term, upon an indictment charging him with receiving stolen goods, the property of the South Carolina State Highway Department, knowing the same to have been stolen, of the value of $200.00. At the conclusion of the State's evidence, Appellant moved for a directed verdict and after rendition of the verdict moved for a new trial. Both motions were denied and Appellant was sentenced to serve a period of 30 months at hard labor upon the public works of Marlboro County or a like period in the State Penitentiary. Timely notice of intention to appeal to this Court was given and Appellant presents the following 7 exceptions:

1. That the trial Judge erred in overruling defendant's motion for a directed verdict of not guilty and in submitting the case to the jury.

2. That the trial Judge erred in overruling defendant's objection to the admission of the five tires alleged to have been stolen and in permitting the same to be admitted in evidence.

3. That the trial Judge erred in overruling defendant's objection to testimony relating to certain cans of paint.

4. That the trial Judge erred in overruling defendant's objection to that portion of the cross-examination of the defendant relating to five cans of paint.

[242 S.C. 195] 5. That the five tires involved in this case were found and taken without a legal search warrant.

6. That for many years, Negroes have been systematically excluded from grand jury duty in Marlboro County.

7. That the sentence in the case was harsh, unreasonable and excessive.

The first question for determination is whether there was error on the part of the trial Judge in overruling the motion for a directed verdict. At the conclusion of the State's evidence, Appellant made motion for a directed verdict; however, no grounds were set forth or argument made in support of the motion. The trial Judge's refusal to grant a directed verdict or a new trial will not be disturbed where there is evidence to support the verdict. State v. Miller, 223 S.C. 128, 74 S.E.2d 582; State v. Prince, 240 S.C. 96, 124 S.E.2d 778.

The duty of the Court when considering a motion for directed verdict is not to pass upon the weight of the evidence but to determine its sufficiency to support the verdict. Where there is any evidence on which the jury may justifiably find the existence or nonexistence of material facts in issue, or if the evidence is of such character that different conclusions as to such facts reasonably may be drawn therefrom, the issues should be submitted to the jury, State v. Rush, 129 S.C. 43, 123 S.E. 765; State v. Gellis, 158 S.C. 471, 155 S.E. 849; State v. Prince, 165 S.C. 115, 162 S.E. 777; and the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State, State v. Brown, 205 S.C. 514, 32 S.E.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Bear v. State, No. 813
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • April 5, 1968
    ...Bryson v. United States, 265 F.2d 9, 14 (9th Cir. 1959). 2 Raullerson v. People, 157 Colo. 462, 404 P.2d 149, 158 (1965); State v. Bass, 242 S.C. 193, 130 S.E.2d 481, 483-484 3 B. J. George, An Unsolved Problem: Comparative Sentencing Techniques, 45 A.B.A.J. 250, 252 (1959). Professor Georg......
  • State v. Hoffman, No. 19358
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 17, 1972
    ...to review except in the case of manifest abuse or injustice. State v. Maxey, 218 S.C. 106, 62 S.E.2d 100 [257 S.C. 470] and State v. Bass, 242 S.C. 193, 130 S.E.2d 481. The reason for the rule permitting leading questions to an adverse witness on cross-examination is the assumed hostility o......
  • State v. Young, No. 18117
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 4, 1963
    ...witnesses it was cured. State v. Cavers, 236 S.C. 305, 114 S.E.2d 401; State v. Puckett, 237 S.C. 369, 117 S.E.2d 369, and State v. Bass, 242 S.C. 193, 130 S.E.2d 481. This exception is The appellant asserts that the Court of General Sessions of Aiken County lacked jurisdiction to try him f......
  • State v. Fogle, No. 19223
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 24, 1971
    ...stolen goods and the sentencing for such offense is determined under the provisions of Section 17--553 of the Code, State v. Bass, 242 S.C. 193, 130 S.E.2d 481, which must be construed in connection with Section 17--552 of the Code, State v. Hill, 254 S.C. 321, 175 S.E.2d These sections of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Bear v. State, No. 813
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • April 5, 1968
    ...Bryson v. United States, 265 F.2d 9, 14 (9th Cir. 1959). 2 Raullerson v. People, 157 Colo. 462, 404 P.2d 149, 158 (1965); State v. Bass, 242 S.C. 193, 130 S.E.2d 481, 483-484 3 B. J. George, An Unsolved Problem: Comparative Sentencing Techniques, 45 A.B.A.J. 250, 252 (1959). Professor Georg......
  • State v. Hoffman, No. 19358
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 17, 1972
    ...to review except in the case of manifest abuse or injustice. State v. Maxey, 218 S.C. 106, 62 S.E.2d 100 [257 S.C. 470] and State v. Bass, 242 S.C. 193, 130 S.E.2d 481. The reason for the rule permitting leading questions to an adverse witness on cross-examination is the assumed hostility o......
  • State v. Young, No. 18117
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 4, 1963
    ...witnesses it was cured. State v. Cavers, 236 S.C. 305, 114 S.E.2d 401; State v. Puckett, 237 S.C. 369, 117 S.E.2d 369, and State v. Bass, 242 S.C. 193, 130 S.E.2d 481. This exception is The appellant asserts that the Court of General Sessions of Aiken County lacked jurisdiction to try him f......
  • State v. Fogle, No. 19223
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 24, 1971
    ...stolen goods and the sentencing for such offense is determined under the provisions of Section 17--553 of the Code, State v. Bass, 242 S.C. 193, 130 S.E.2d 481, which must be construed in connection with Section 17--552 of the Code, State v. Hill, 254 S.C. 321, 175 S.E.2d These sections of ......
  • 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