State v. Evans, No. 16321
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | BAKER |
| Citation | 57 S.E.2d 756,216 S.C. 328 |
| Decision Date | 25 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 16321 |
| Parties | STATE v. EVANS. |
Page 756
v.
EVANS.
Hemphill & Hemphill, Chester, for appellant.
[216 S.C. 329] W. G. Finley, Sol., York, for respondent.
BAKER, Chief Justice.
The appellant and another were tried, convicted and sentenced at a term of the Court of General Sessions for Chester County on March 8, 1949, on an indictment charging them [216 S.C. 330] with manufacturing whiskey on February 11, 1949. The warrants for the arrest of the defendants also alleged the date as of February 11, 1949.
On the trial of the case, the witnesses for the State fixed the date as of February 10, 1949. When the State closed its case, the appellant moved for a direction of a verdict of not guilty on the grounds: (1) That there was a material variance between the indictment and the proof, and (2) That the appellant was taken by surprise by said variance.
After considerable discussion, the State moved to amend the indictment to conform to the proof. Appellant objected thereto on the ground that he was taken by surprise. Appellant's motion for a direction of verdict was refused, and the State was permitted to amend so as to allege the date as of February 10, 1949, and the trial proceeded.
Following the arrest of the appellant, either he or his counsel demanded a preliminary hearing before the magistrate who issued the warrant, which hearing was granted, and the testimony then taken was that on the 10th day of February, 1949, the appellant and two others were at the site of the still, and that upon becoming aware of the presence of officers, the appellant and the other two men ran. Appellant and his counsel therefore knew prior to the finding of a 'true bill' on the indictment that February 10, 1949, was the date on which the appellant would have to furnish an alibi if such was a part of his defense. No issue was made at the preliminary hearing as to the date testified to by the witnesses, so the appellant had ample notice to be prepared with his alibi testimony for such date. Of course, if no preliminary hearing had been held, and for the first time the witnesses for the prosecution fixed the date as February 10, 1949, when the appellant was prepared with his witnesses to prove an alibi for February 11, 1949, then it would have been proper for the trial Judge, after permitting the amendment of the indictment to conform if such was necessary, to have declared a mistrial, and continued the case
Page 757
until the appellant could [216 S.C. 331] procure witnesses to testify as to his whereabouts on the date alleged in the indictment as amended.We find no error in the refusal of the trial Judge to direct a verdict of not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Means, No. 26105.
...prejudiced by a lack of notice and an insufficient indictment. State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 130, 437 S.E.2d 75, 78 (1993); State v. Evans, 216 S.C. 328, 57 S.E.2d 756 While the court should focus primarily on charging language in the body of the indictment, a caption or title which is consi......
-
State v. Reddick, No. 3448.
...or was not prejudiced can be reached. State v. Hiott, supra; State v. Shoemaker[216 S.C. 86, 275 S.E.2d 878 (1981)] supra; State v. Evans, 216 S.C. 328, 57 S.E.2d 756 In this case the statement signed by Adams itself described his mens rea. He was indicted for the crimes accompanying the ho......
-
State v. Reid, No. 4574.
...Notes: 1. The statute, as amended, became effective June 1, 2005. Reid was arrested in January 2006. 2. See State v. Evans, 216 S.C. 328, 333, 57 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1950) ("The law does not concern itself with mere guilty intention, unconnected with any overt act.") (citing State v.......
-
State v. Barnett, No. 3751.
...State v. Hiott, 276 S.C. 72, 81, 276 S.E.2d 163, 167 (1981); State v. Shoemaker, 276 S.C. 86, 275 S.E.2d 878 (1981); State v. Evans, 216 S.C. 328, 57 S.E.2d 756 4. Both indictments contained the titles of the charges in the body that state the victim was a correctional facility employee. Ad......
-
State v. Means, No. 26105.
...prejudiced by a lack of notice and an insufficient indictment. State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 130, 437 S.E.2d 75, 78 (1993); State v. Evans, 216 S.C. 328, 57 S.E.2d 756 While the court should focus primarily on charging language in the body of the indictment, a caption or title which is consi......
-
State v. Reddick, No. 3448.
...or was not prejudiced can be reached. State v. Hiott, supra; State v. Shoemaker[216 S.C. 86, 275 S.E.2d 878 (1981)] supra; State v. Evans, 216 S.C. 328, 57 S.E.2d 756 In this case the statement signed by Adams itself described his mens rea. He was indicted for the crimes accompanying the ho......
-
State v. Reid, No. 4574.
...Notes: 1. The statute, as amended, became effective June 1, 2005. Reid was arrested in January 2006. 2. See State v. Evans, 216 S.C. 328, 333, 57 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1950) ("The law does not concern itself with mere guilty intention, unconnected with any overt act.") (citing State v.......
-
State v. Barnett, No. 3751.
...State v. Hiott, 276 S.C. 72, 81, 276 S.E.2d 163, 167 (1981); State v. Shoemaker, 276 S.C. 86, 275 S.E.2d 878 (1981); State v. Evans, 216 S.C. 328, 57 S.E.2d 756 4. Both indictments contained the titles of the charges in the body that state the victim was a correctional facility employee. Ad......