State v. Hamilton

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BLEASE, Chief Justice.
• Citation: State v. Hamilton, 172 S.C. 453, 174 S.E. 396 (S.C. 1934)
• Decision Date: 30 April 1934
• Docket Number: 13837.
• Parties: STATE v. HAMILTON.

174 S.E. 396

172 S.C. 453

STATE v. HAMILTON.

No. 13837.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 30, 1934

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.

BLEASE Chief Justice.

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: "Now, you can write a verdict of not guilty as to his breaking and entering and larceny: if you think he ought to be convicted of receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen, you can find him guilty of that, or you can find him guilty of all three charges, and, in that event, your verdict would be 'Guilty', that is 'Guilty as to Jake N. Hamilton.' Or, if the State hasn't satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of anything, say, 'Not Guilty'; and if you write that on both of these indictments that ends the case so far as this is concerned." (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 defendant, except where there is some...