State v. Brazell

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BLEASE, J.
• Citation: State v. Brazell, 138 S.E. 352, 139 S.C. 539 (S.C. 1927)
• Decision Date: 30 May 1927
• Docket Number: 12216.
• Parties: STATE v. BRAZELL.

138 S.E. 352

139 S.C. 539

STATE v. BRAZELL.

No. 12216.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 30, 1927

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Fairfield County; J K. Henry, Judge.

M. N Brazell was convicted for illegal storing and transporting of whisky, and he appeals. Affirmed.

C. T Graydon, of Columbia, for appellant.

J Lyles Glenn, Jr., Sol., of Chester, for the State.

BLEASE J.

The grand jury of Fairfield county returned an indictment against the defendant, M. N. Brazell, for violation of the prohibition law. The indictment contained two counts; one charging the illegal storing of whisky, and the other transportation of whisky. In the trial before Hon. J. K. Henry, in the court of general sessions, a verdict of guilty generally was rendered, and thereupon the defendant was sentenced to 12 months' service.

The defendant asks a reversal of judgment and sentence in the lower court upon several exceptions.

The defendant, both at the close of the testimony for the state and at the close of all the testimony in the case, moved for a directed verdict of not guilty as to the charge of transporting, and, after conviction, he moved for a new trial as to the whole case. The failure of the court to grant these motions is alleged by three exceptions to have been erroneous.

The contention of the appellant is that the state depended upon circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the defendant, and that the testimony in the case was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the law as to circumstantial evidence. Without giving in detail all the testimony of the case, we find certain facts, as related by witnesses, which we think were sufficient to require the circuit judge to submit the question of the defendant's guilt to the jury. The defendant resided in Columbia. On April 16, 1927, the day of the alleged offense charged against him, he was in Winnsboro, the county seat of Fairfield county, traveling in a Ford automobile equipped with Firestone "Clover Leaf" tires. His car was watched by Sheriff Macfie and other peace officers. He was seen to stop at a residence in Winnsboro, and thereafter a woman and two children were seen in the car with him. Defendant's car was seen going in the direction of Little Zion Church, about a mile from the town of Winnsboro, and in the public highway near the church there was evidence that a car had been stopped there and parked, and tracks of men, a woman, and children were found near the car. The tracks of the men led from the road into a field to a place about 100 yards from the highway, where several gallons of whisky in fruit jars were found; the jars of whisky being wrapped in newspaper known as the Columbia Record, published in Columbia, the home city of the defendant. There was evidence in the road of tracks made by an automobile tire known as the " Clover Leaf balloon." The officers watched the place where the whisky was found, and on the next day, April 17th, saw two young men, Coleman and Hendricks, near this place. After a conversation with these two men, the sheriff arrested the defendant, who was identified to the sheriff by Coleman and Hendricks. Coleman and Hendricks testified that on the morning of the 17th of April, the appellant told them that he might find them something to drink; that thereupon they got into the car with him and went to a place near Little Zion Church; that the defendant got out, went down to the woods, and in a little while returned and said he could not find the whisky; that the defendant told them to meet him at the same place at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and that they could get some from him; that they returned to the place about 2 o'clock, and, while they were there, the officers came up and arrested them, but that the defendant did not show up.

We therefore hold that exceptions 1, 2, and 7, as to the failure to direct a verdict and as to refusal to grant a new trial, are without merit.

The third exception charges error on the part of the trial judge in instructing the jury as to the law of "constructive storing"; it being alleged that there was no evidence in the case to warrant the application of that doctrine. In our opinion, the résumé of the evidence we have given above is sufficient to show that the charge...