State v. Bolin, 17216
| Decision Date | 05 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 17216,17216 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Beattie BOLIN, Appellant. |
Harry L. Cline, Gaffney, for appellant.
J. Allen Lambright, Sol., Spartanburg, for respondent.
At the November, 1955, term of the Court of General Sessions for Cherokee County, Beattie Bolin was found guilty of selling alcoholic liquors on Sunday, in violation of Section 4-102 of the 1952 Code. He acted as his own counsel at the trial, and counsel now representing him was not employed until after imposition of sentence.
Certain exceptions have been abandoned, and those remaining for consideration charge that the trial judge erred:
1. In questioning a witness for the prosecution with regard to certain bottles of liquor, not involved in the alleged sales, that the arresting officers found in the defendant's home;
2. In permitting these other bottles of liquor, which were not in evidence, to be brought into the courtroom and to remain there in the presence of the jury; and
3. In refusing to grant defendant's motion for direction of verdict because of insufficiency of proof of his guilt.
The questions sought to be raised by 1 and 2 above, not having been raised during the trial, with not now be considered. State v. Burnett, 226 S.C. 421, 85 S.E.2d 744; State v. Alexander, S.C., 95 S.E.2d 160. Moreover, it was the defendant himself who injected the matter of the additional liquor into the trial, during his cross-examination of Officers Reed and Collins. Both of these officers testified, in response to his questions, that in addition to the three half-pints of liquor purchased from him by Reed earlier in the day, which were in evidence, they had found in his home, and had seized, seventy-one half-pints and eight pints. During the re-direct examination of Collins the presiding judge inquired of the solicitor whether or not any of the bottles last mentioned were of the same brand as any of the three half-pints in evidence; and thereupon the solicitor, without objection on the part of the defendant, put the suggested question to the witness, who replied in the affirmative.
Also, it was at the request of the defendant himself that the liquor not in evidence was brought into the courtroom. The transcript of record shows that at the close of the testimony, the jury having retired, the following occurred:
'The Court: I don't see where it has any bearing on the case.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCrary, 18084
...Court, the question cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Alexander, 230 S.C. 195, 95 S.E.2d 160, and State v. Bolin, 230 S.C. 204, 95 S.E.2d 163. In view of the fact that the appellant consented to be tried upon two indictments at the same time, and having raised no objec......
-
State v. Bellue, 19520
...Court, the question cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Alexander, 230 S.C. 195, 95 S.E.2d 160, and State v. Bolin, 230 S.C. 204, 95 S.E.2d 163.' State v. McCrary, 242 S.C. 506, 131 S.E.2d 687 What we have said about defendant's failure to object to admission of photogra......
-
State v. Speights, 19884
...court, the question cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Alexander, 230 S.C. 195, 95 S.E.2d 160, and State v. Bolin, 230 S.C. 204, 95 S.E.2d 163.' State v. McCrary, 242 S.C. 506, 131 S.E.2d 687 The defendant next challenges the validity of the imposition of the death pena......
-
State v. White
...lower court, the question cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Alexander, 230 S.C. 195, 95 S.E.2d 160; State v. Bolin, 230 S.C. 204, 95 S.E.2d 163, and State v. McCrary, 242 S.C. 506, 131 S.E.2d The appellant next contends that under the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.......