State v. Bostick, 18095
| Decision Date | 10 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 18095,18095 |
| Citation | 131 S.E.2d 841,243 S.C. 14 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Lewis BOSTICK, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Luke N. Brown, Jr., D. N. Rivers, J. N. Malphrus, Ridgeland, for appellant.
Randolph Murdaugh, J. Robert Peters, Jr., Hampton, for respondent.
C. W. Floyd, the Sheriff of Jasper County, South Carolina, was fatally shot on January 18, 1962, while investigating an attempted robbery which had been reported to him. The shooting occurred in a wooded area adjacent to U. S. Highway No. 601, near the village of Pineland, in Jasper County, in the vicinity of the attempted robbery. The sheriff died while being carried in an ambulance to a hospital in Savannah, Georgia. From information received and through early pursuit of the assailant with bloodhounds, the defendant Lewis Bostick was apprehended on the same day a short distance from the scene of the crime while hiding in the loft of a house, and admitted that he shot the sheriff. The defendant was subsequently indicted by the ground jury of Jasper County for the murder of Sheriff Floyd, and was so convicted on February 29, 1962.
Although others were in the area at the time, there was no eye witness to the shooting. The conviction of the defendant was based upon, among other facts and circumstances, testimony as to the similarity of clothing worn by the defendant at the time of his arrest and that worn by the individual suspected of the attempted robbery and seen in the vicinity of the scene of the shooting a short time before; the identification of the rifle of the defendant found near the scene as the murder weapon; the identification of a cap found near the scene as belonging to the defendant; testimony as to peculiarities in the tracks made by the shoes worn by the defendant and the close similarity of such tracks to those found leaving the scene of the crime; and statements in the nature of confessions made by the defendant on several occasions after his arrest under circumstances amply warranting a conclusion by the jury that such statements were freely and voluntarily made. The defendant offered no testimony at the trial.
During the trial, the defendant, out of the presence of the jury and through his counsel, offered a plea of guilty upon a recommendation to mercy, which, if accepted, would have carried a mandatory life sentence. The offer to so plead was rejected by the Solicitor and the trial resulted in a verdict by the jury of guilty without recommendation to mercy, which carried the mandatory sentence of death by electrocution. The death sentence was imposed by the trial judge and this appeal followed.
At the conclusion of the testimony, the defendant moved for a directed verdict of not guilty on the ground that the State had failed to prove, as alleged in the indictment, that the death of Sheriff Floyd occurred in Jasper County where the defendant was tried. This motion was refused and, at the conclusion of the Court's charge to the jury, the defendant requested that the jury be instructed that proof of the place of death was a material element in the State's case against the defendant and the burden of so proving was upon the State. This request was refused. The failure of the court to so instruct the jury is the basis of the only exception filed by the defendant in this appeal.
The indictment alleged that Sheriff Floyd was shot in Jasper County, South Carolina, and that he died in that County. These allegations, which allege the place of the assault and the place of death, are generally regarded as essential allegations in an indictment for murder, State v. Platt et al., 154 S.C. 1, 151 S.E. 206. As such allegations affect jurisdiction or the essential elements of the crime, they must be proved by the State, State v. Rector, 158 S.C. 212, 155 S.E. 385, and should ordinarily be submitted to the jury for determination with proper instructions by the court. State v. Gantt et al., 223 S.C. 431, 76 S.E.2d 674. However, in accord with well settled principles of law, questions relating to the place of the assault and place of death need not be submitted to the jury for determination, or instructions given by the court with reference to such issues, where there is no conflict in the evidence thereabout, or where there is no material issue on such questions. See: 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1196b.
The purpose of requiring the State to allege and prove the place of the assault and the place of death is (1) to show jurisdiction of the court and (2) to fully inform the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation. In the application of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bostick v. State
...murder of the Sheriff of Jasper County and sentenced to death. He appealed and the conviction and sentence were affirmed. State v. Bostick, 243 S.C. 14, 131 S.E.2d 841. Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. After a hearing on November 18, 1964, this petition was ......
-
State v. Gunn
...the failure to submit this question to the jury is not reversible error where there is no conflict in the evidence. State v. Bostick, 243 S.C. 14, 131 S.E.2d 841 (1963); compare Posey v. State, 250 S.C. 55, 156 S.E.2d 340 (1967); State v. Henderson, 285 S.C. 320, 329 S.E.2d 448 (Ct.App.1985......
-
Williams v. Ozmint
...to the defendant. See S.C.Code Ann. § 17-19-30; State v. Brisbon, 323 S.C. 324, 474 S.E.2d 433, 436 (1996) (quoting State v. Bostick, 243 S.C. 14, 131 S.E.2d 841, 842 (1963)). Williams's jury was thus instructed that the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the murders......
-
State v. Brisbon
...be applied with liberality when it clearly appears that no prejudice will result to the defendant in his defense. State v. Bostick, 243 S.C. 14, 17, 131 S.E.2d 841, 842 (1963). Accordingly, we reject Brisbon's argument that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the locati......