State v. Blackstone

• Decision Date: 26 January 1920
• Docket Number: 10360.
• Parties: STATE v. BLACKSTONE.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

101 S.E. 845

113 S.C. 528

STATE v. BLACKSTONE.

No. 10360.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 26, 1920

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Hampton County; James E. Peurifoy, Judge.

A. S Blackstone was convicted of violating the prohibition law and appeals. Affirmed.

B. R Hiers, of Hampton, for appellant.

Solicitor Geo. Warren and R. Murdaugh, both of Hampton, for the State.

FRASER J.

The case states the facts:

"The above case was called for trial and tried at the June, 1917, term of the court of general sessions for Hampton county before a jury, under indictment charging violation of the prohibition law. On the call of the case for trial, defendant's attorney moved to quash the indictment on the ground of misnomer, the indictment charging as defendant in the several counts, J. F. Blalock, alias Blackstone, the said A. S. Blackstone submitting affidavit that he was not commonly known or called by that name. After argument of counsel, this motion was overruled. The solicitor then amended the indictment by erasing the words 'J. F. Blalock, alias Blackstone,' and inserted therein the words 'A. S. Blackstone' in each of the several counts, but did not resubmit the indictment to the grand jury. Defendant's attorney then moved to quash the indictment, because the name charged originally in the indictment, as found by the grand jury, to wit, J. F. Blalock, alias Blackstone, had been changed to A. S. Blackstone without consent of the defendant and without being re-referred to the grand jury, and that the second count in the indictment as to the sale of intoxicating liquors failed to charge the specific person to whom a sale was made, and some other grounds. After hearing the motion, the presiding judge made an order: 'That the motion be and the same is hereby overruled, except as to the second count of the indictment charging sale; the motion is sustained as to the second count.' The allegations of the indictment are quoted substantially in the charge herein."

A jury was impaneled and the testimony submitted. At the conclusion of the testimony, defendant's attorney asked that he be allowed one hour in which to present the case for the defendant. The court declined the request, and fixed the time at 20 minutes for each side. Defendant's attorney asked that his objection be noted, which was done by the stenographer, after argument by Mr. Murdaugh on the part of the state, by Mr. Hiers on the part of the defendant, and by the solicitor on the part of the state.

I. The first two exceptions complain of error in allowing the...