State v. Fisher
| Decision Date | 21 March 1945 |
| Docket Number | 15724. |
| Citation | 33 S.E.2d 495,206 S.C. 220 |
| Parties | STATE v. FISHER. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
J. D. Lanford, of Greenville, for appellant.
W A. Bull, Sol., of Greenville, for respondent.
Deputy Sheriff Patterson was first asked how many times during the preceding six months he had ' had occasion' to go to defendant's home. Upon objection by defendant's counsel, the question was reframed with the italicized words omitted. The witness answered that he had gone on 'an average of once every two weeks.' He was then asked who lived in the home, to which he replied that it was the home of defendant and that he saw defendant's brother, Ansel Fisher, only on the first two visits which were made in October, 1943. The witness further testified that on two of these trips, one in October and the other in November, 1943, the defendant had in his possession unstamped whiskey and made sales on both occasions.
It is conceded in the opinion of the Chief Justice that the evidence of the offenses alleged to have been committed in October and November was competent, but it is held that the testimony as to the other visits made by this officer was highly prejudicial and constituted an attack on defendant's reputation.
Defendant testified that both he and his brother resided in this home. The testimony in controversy may have been offered in anticipation of a contention by defendant that he was not the sole occupant of the premises, and to show that the witness from frequent visits was in a position to know who resided there. But assuming that the testimony was irrelevant, I do not think it was prejudicial. The most that defendant could claim is that it tended to show that the officer thought he was unlawfully engaged in handling intoxicating liquors and was making frequent visits to the premises for the purpose of securing evidence thereof. But the testimony as to the visits when the defendant was found violating the law regulating intoxicating liquors, which testimony is conceded to be competent, conveyed the same impression. The reasonable inference to be drawn from the foregoing testimony is that on the other occasions the officer found no whiskey which instead of being prejudicial, tended to negative the idea of continuity or habit, an essential element to the offense of storing.
I am in full accord with the disposition made of the other questions, but think all exceptions should be overruled and judgment below affirmed.
The majority of the court having concurred in the foregoing, it has become the judgment of the court.
Affirmed.
The second count in the indictment on which the appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced is in the following language: 'That Jack Fisher on the 11th day of March, 1944, in the County of Greenville and State of South Carolina, did wilfully and unlawfully store and keep in his possession two and one-half gallons alcoholic liquors which did not have South Carolina revenue stamps affixed to the container and containers thereof, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State'.
Prior to entering upon the trial, the appellant demurred to and moved to quash the indictment as to the second count 'on the ground that it does not fully inform the defendant of the charges placed against him by alleging the place of storage'. This motion was refused, and is the basis of appellant's first exception.
Article I, Section 18 of the Constitution of 1895, provides that 'in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall * * * be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; * * *.' Section 1003 of the Code of 1942 reads in part: 'Every indictment shall be deemed and judged sufficient and good in law which, in addition to allegations as to time and place, as now required by law, charges the crime substantially in the language * * * of the statute prohibiting the same, or so plainly that the nature of the offense charged may be easily understood; * * *.'
The twofold purpose of the statute in requiring the indictment to allege the 'place' of the commission of the crime is to lay jurisdiction of the court, and inform the accused of the county in which he is charged with the violation of the law. The indictment in this case complies with the requirement of the law. In this connection, see State v. Colclough, 31 S.C. 156, 9 S.E. 811; State v. Burbage, 51 S.C. 284, 28 S.E. 937.
Following the refusal of the trial judge to quash the indictment as to the second count, the appellant moved the court to require the State to amend this count 'by alleging reasonably definite the place where the whiskey is alleged to have been stored (in the County), reasonably close to the proof' relied upon. This motion was likewise refused.
The granting and/or refusal of this motion was in the sound discretion of the trial judge. The record does not disclose that he abused his discretion, that is to say, the record does not disclose that the appellant was prejudiced or suffered any surprise in the final placement of the alleged storage by the testimony.
The next question presented by this appeal is: Did the trial judge err in allowing testimony as to previous offenses alleged to have been committed by the appellant in the possessing, storing and selling of whiskey four and five months prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial