State v. Daniels

• Decision Date: 27 June 1908
• Citation: State v. Daniels, 80 S. C. 368, 61 S. E. 1073 (S.C. 1908)
• Parties: STATE v. DANIELS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

61 S.E. 1073

80 S.C. 368

STATE v. DANIELS.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 27, 1908

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Georgetown County; J C. Klugh, Judge.

Peter Daniels was convicted of receiving stolen property, and appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

P. T Hildebrand, for the State.

GARY A. J.

The defendant was tried and convicted under an indictment wherein he was charged with feloniously receiving two cows stolen from Magdalene Great, which he knew had been stolen. The state offered in evidence the record in the case of State v. John Porter, charged with larceny of live stock, to wit, five cows, alleged to have been the property of one Magdalene Great, which had been previously tried at the same term of court, and in which the defendant, Porter, had been convicted. The record introduced consisted of the original indictment in the case of State v. John Porter, with the verdict of guilty indorsed thereon. No other part of the record, and none of the testimony, in that case was offered. Neither of said indictments contained any other description of the property.

The first question that will be considered is that which is presented by the following exception: "Because it is respectfully submitted his honor, the circuit judge, erred in refusing the defendant's motion for a new trial, made upon the ground 'that there was no evidence, either in the record of the case of State v. John Porter, or otherwise, identifying the cows in this case as the cows which John Porter was convicted of stealing."' This court is satisfied that there are circumstances detailed in the testimony from which the jury might reasonably have drawn the inference that the cows described in the indictment herein were two of those which John Porter was convicted of stealing. But, as there must be a new trial on other grounds, it is deemed best not to discuss the testimony.

We proceed, next, to consider the following assignment of error "Because it is respectfully submitted his honor, the circuit judge, erred in refusing to charge as requested in the defendant's tenth request, which was as follows: 'Even if the jury shall find from the evidence that the defendant had some suspicions as to the good faith of John Porter in selling him the cows, or as to his ownership or right to dispose of the same, or that he had some grounds for suspicion, that alone, in the absence of clear proof of guilty knowledge on his part, will not be sufficient to justify a conviction.' It is submitted that said request contained a sound and correct proposition of law, inasmuch as no person can be legally convicted of a criminal offense without proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of each material element constituting the offense charged; and a guilty knowledge of the larceny on the part of the defendant being an essential element of the crime charged in this case, it was necessary for the state to establish such guilty knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt." When the request was presented, his honor, the presiding judge, said: "I refuse to charge you that, and charge you this, as the law: Where a person has knowledge of facts, or has suspicious that would induce a person of ordinary prudence to make inquiry, then he is required to do so. If he fails to do so, he is as much bound by what may be the state of...