State v. Bennett, 19465
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | BRAILSFORD; MOSS |
| Citation | 259 S.C. 50,190 S.E.2d 497 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Grover BENNETT, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 19465,19465 |
| Decision Date | 03 August 1972 |
Page 497
v.
Grover BENNETT, Appellant.
[259 S.C. 51] Matthew J. Perry, of Jenkins, Perry & Pride, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. Victor S. Evans, Columbia, Sol. Marion H. Kinon, Dillon and J. DuPre Miller, Bennettsville, for respondent.
[259 S.C. 52] BRAILSFORD, Justice.
The defendant was convicted at the May, 1971, term of the Court of General Sessions for Chesterfield County of kidnapping one Patricia Chavis and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He has appealed to this Court on a number of exceptions, one of which charges error in refusing to acquit him by direction of the court because of the insufficiency of the evidence to establish the offense charged. This exception is wholly without merit and has received scant attention in argument. The evidence need not be reviewed [259 S.C. 53] in any detail. Suffice it to say that on the evening of January 16, 1971, in the course of an outrageous attempt by two men to kidnap several prominent Bennettsville citizens,
Page 498
including Senator John Charles Lindsay, the prosecuting witness, her husband and four children were abducted from their Bennettsville home at gunpoint. They were forced into Mr. Chavis' Volkswagen Van and driven to the Lindsay home, where Mrs. Lindsay and her young son were also abducted and placed in the Van. At the next stop, one of the desperados was mortally wounded by gunfire from a source not disclosed by the record, and the other, later identified as the defendant, fled.On defendant's motion, the venue was changed from Marlboro County to Chesterfield. His further motion to move the trial beyond the Fourth Judicial Circuit was refused, and he assigns this as error depriving him of a fair trial. The defendant made no evidentiary showing in support of his motion. He simply asked the court to recognize that because of the prominence of the people affected by the criminal conduct in Marlboro County, especially Senator Lindsay, he could not get a fair trial in the neighboring County of Chesterfield. The able trial judge, resident of the circuit, was unconvinced. We find no error.
The defendant was represented at the May term by Mr. Natthew Perry of the Columbia Bar and by two members of the Chesterfield Bar, all by appointment of the court. Mr. Perry had been appointed some months before, after defendant's efforts to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atkins v. Moore, C.A. No. 3:96-2859-22 (D. S.C. 6/10/1997), C.A. No. 3:96-2859-22.
...time a jury deliberates rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge," State v. Atkins, 399 S.E.2d at 763 (citing State v. Bennett, 190 S.E.2d 497 (S.C. 1972)). The court found no abuse of discretion in requiring the jury to continue In his present claim, Petitioner asserts that the tri......
-
State v. Elephant, Inc., Appellate Case No. 2016-001695
...(1989))). The trial court's denial of Appellants' motion for a continuance did not deny them the right to counsel. See State v. Bennett, 259 S.C. 50, 53-54, 190 S.E.2d 497, 498 (1972) (holding the trial court's denial of a motion for a continuance did not deny the defendant his right to cou......
-
State on relation of William Walter Wilkins v. Elephant, Inc., 2019-UP-290
...(1989))). The trial court's denial of Appellants' motion for a continuance did not deny them the right to counsel. See State v. Bennett, 259 S.C. 50, 53-54, 190 S.E.2d 497, 498 (1972) (holding the trial court's denial of a motion for a continuance did not deny the defendant his right to cou......
-
State v. Atkins, 23281
...that it was hung. We disagree. The length of time a jury deliberates rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Bennett, 259 S.C. 50, 190 S.E.2d 497 After a 4 1/2 day trial, we find no abuse of discretion in requiring the jury to continue deliberations. VI. EXPERT TESTIMONY ......