State v. Flintroy
| Decision Date | 01 November 1935 |
| Docket Number | 14156. |
| Citation | 182 S.E. 311,178 S.C. 89 |
| Parties | STATE v. FLINTROY et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Orangeburg County; M. M Mann, Judge.
W. L Flintroy, alias W. R. Williams, was convicted of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and Mary Beard Ezekiel was convicted of being an accessory after the fact and Mary Beard Ezekiel appeals.
Reversed as to appellant, and appellant discharged from custody.
L. A Hutson, of Orangeburg, for appellant.
A. J. Hydrick, of Orangeburg, for the State.
W. L. Flintroy was charged with the offense of rape by an indictment presented and found against him May 6, 1935. The same day he was arraigned on that indictment; he entered a plea of not guilty. On that day Mary Beard Ezekiel was arrested and charged with aiding Flintroy to escape arrest and punishment. The next day, May 7, another indictment was presented to the grand jury charging Flintroy with the crime of rape, with assault with intent to ravish and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. Mary Beard Ezekiel immediately after her arrest demanded of the magistrate a preliminary examination, which was refused; the magistrate saying that the solicitor had the warrant. She moved the court, in open court, that the case be referred to the magistrate in order that a preliminary examination be held; the motion was refused. At the conclusion of the state's testimony, Flintroy moved for a directed verdict in his favor. The court directed a verdict of not guilty as to Flintroy on all the counts of the indictment except that which charged assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature; this he submitted to the jury and Flintroy was found guilty. At the same time the appellant, Mary Beard Ezekiel, moved for a directed verdict of not guilty, which motion was refused. She was found guilty of being accessory after the fact. She made a motion for a new trial on several grounds, including this: The motion was refused, and both defendants were sentenced to ten years' penal servitude. Mary Beard Ezekiel alone appeals. Her appeal is founded upon several exceptions, only two of which need be specifically noticed. The first is that which challenges the refusal to grant the motion for new trial on the ground that there is no accessory to a misdemeanor.
This exception must be sustained. It is the common law:
The only statutory provision in this state relating to accessories is contained in section 1937 of the Code of 1932, and that relates solely to accessories in felonies.
It was error not to grant the motion for new trial on this ground.
Another exception charges that it was error not to grant the motion to remand the case to the magistrate for the purpose of holding a preliminary examination, and error in holding that section 936 of the Code of 1932 is unconstitutional.
That provision of the statute relating to preliminary examinations herein involved is contained in section 936, vol. 1, Code of Laws 1932, and is in these words: "That whenever any defendant or defendants shall demand, in writing, a preliminary hearing it shall be mandatory upon such magistrate to grant said hearing, and the said case shall not be transmitted to the Court of General Sessions or submitted to the grand jury until a preliminary hearing shall have been had, the magistrate to retain jurisdiction and the Court of General Sessions not to acquire jurisdiction until after such preliminary hearing: Provided, Further, that the demand for such preliminary hearing shall be made at least ten (10) days before the convening of the next General Sessions Court thereafter."
On trial the state challenged the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Adcock
...to the grand jury was within his discretion and, we think, was warranted. There is no ground for appeal thereabout. See State v. Flintroy, 178 S.C. 89, 182 S.E. 311. We no reversible error. Judgment affirmed. FISHBURNE and STUKES, JJ., and J. STROM THURMOND, A. A. J., concur. BAKER, J., dis......
-
State v. Keenan, 21796
...of constitutionally circumscribed legislative power. Section 22-5-320 was in harmony with the Constitution of 1895. State v. Flintroy, 178 S.C. 89, 182 S.E. 311 (1935). But Article V of the present Constitution, ratified in 1973, differs drastically from Article V of the 1895 Constitution. ......
-
State v. Nesmith
...for such action. For cases bearing upon the question under discussion, see State v. Adcock, 194 S.C. 234, 9 S.E.2d 730; State v. Flintroy, 178 S.C. 89, 182 S.E. 311; State v. Mason, 115 S.C. 214, 105 S.E. State v. Crosby, 108 S.C. 315, 94 S.E. 488. The position is next taken that appellant ......
-
Ulmer v. Bookhart
... ... without evidence to sustain it. See Crouch v ... Tarver, 173 S.C. 172, 175 S.E. 273; South Carolina ... State Bank Receiver v. Stokes, 169 S.C. 173, 168 S.E ... 541; Stephens v. Wheeler, 167 S.C. 522, 166 S.E ... It is ... true there is ... ...