State v. Hamilton
| Citation | 174 S.E. 396,172 S.C. 453 |
| Decision Date | 30 April 1934 |
| Docket Number | 13837. |
| Parties | STATE v. HAMILTON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Dillon County; Hayne F. Rice, Judge.
Jake N Hamilton was convicted under indictments charging housebreaking, larceny, and receiving stolen goods, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Gibson & Muller, of Dillon, for appellant.
S. S Tison, Sol., of Bennettsville, for the State.
The appellant, with five others, was charged in two indictments each containing three counts, with the crimes of housebreaking, larceny, and receiving stolen goods. By consent, the two cases have been tried together in the lower court, and in the review by this court, likewise, there has been only one appeal in both cases. In the first trial, all the defendants were convicted. The appeal therefrom was by the appellant alone, and his conviction and sentence were reversed. See State v. Hamilton, 166 S.C. 274, 164 S.E. 639.
In the second trial of the appellant, on each of the indictments the jury returned a general verdict of "guilty," and sentence was imposed by the presiding judge, Hon. H. F. Rice.
In the present appeal, there are several exceptions, but it is only necessary to consider the first, and, under the law, we are compelled to sustain that.
On the very important matter as to the verdict that could be returned, the jury were instructed as follows: (Italics added.)
The crime of larceny and that of receiving stolen goods are entirely separate and distinct offenses. While one may be charged in an indictment with both of these crimes, he cannot be convicted of both. If he is guilty of the larceny, he is not guilty of receiving the goods so stolen; but he may be innocent of the larceny, and guilty of receiving the goods after they have been stolen.
It is an essential element of the offense of receiving stolen goods "that the goods should have been previously stolen or acquired by some kindred offense by someone other than ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tindall
...under our cases that larceny and receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen, are two separate and distinct offenses. State v. Hamilton, supra. Consequently, the appellant could not be found guilty of offense of receiving stolen goods unless the property was stolen by someone ot......
-
State v. Tinsley
...of both the theft of the property and the separate and distinct offense of receiving the stolen property. State v. Hamilton, 172 S.C. 453, 455, 174 S.E. 396, 396 (1934) (recognizing that a defendant can be charged with both offenses but can only be convicted of one); see also State v. McNei......