State v. Houston
| Decision Date | 02 July 1888 |
| Citation | 6 S.E. 943,29 S.C. 108 |
| Parties | State v. Houston. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
1. Larceny—Receiving Stolen Goods—Instructions—Charging on the Facts.
Where, on a trial lor receiving stolen goods, defendant testifies that she took them for services rendered, and did not know they were worth more than the services, a charge that whether defendant knew the value was a question for the jury, but that their value was evidently much greater than defendant's services, is in conflict with the constitutional provision prohibiting a charge on the facts.
3. Husband and Wife—Wife's Liability for Crime—Coercion by Husband.
Where a wife is indicted with her husband for receiving stolen goods, a charge that if the wife was drawn into the crime by her husband, but was the more active of the two, she is equally guilty, is erroneous, as her guilt would depend, not upon the fact of her activity, but whether that activity was voluntary, or caused by the coercion of her husband.1
Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Fairfield county; Norton, Judge.
Sallie Houston was indicted with her husband for receiving stolen goods, was found guilty, and appeals.
C. A. Douglas and Ragsdale & Ragsdale, for appellant.
J. E. McDonald, for the State.
The defendant was indicted jointly with her husband for receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen. Her husband was acquitted, but she was convicted. Her defense was that she had received the goods from one Clara Yongue in payment of certain services rendered the said Clara by the said defendant. A quantity of the goods, of the stealing of which Clara had been convicted, were produced in court, and identified. The defendant complains in her appeal that his honor erred in charging that the value of these goods was evidently much larger than the services performedby the defendant; and also that he erred in charging that if, upon the testimony, it clearly appeared that the wife was drawn into the offense by her husband, but was the more active of the two, she is guilty as well as her husband, and it is possible to convict them both.
There seems to have been no doubt that the goods in question had been stolen, and that they had been received by the defendants; and a vital point in the case was, did defendants know that they had been stolen? The defendants attempted to account for the receiving on the ground that they were taken in payment of services rendered by defendant Sallie to Clara, the thief. Thus the value of the goods as compared to the services rendered, bore more or less upon the question of guilty knowledge; because, if the value of the goods was much larger than the value of the services, that fact was well calculated to excite inquiries and arouse suspicion. We do not know whether any testimony was introduced on that question, except it is stated in the charge that the defendant said that she did not know that the goods amounted to more than her services, which was an important fact in her favor. His honor met this by saying in his charge "that the state has produced quite a number of articles, and their value is evidently much larger than the value of the services performed by the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fulton v. State
... ... receiver purchased the goods for very much less than their ... value. People v. Levison, supra; People v. Hertz, ... 105 Cal. 660, 39 P. 32; People v. Clausen, 120 Cal ... 381, 52 P. 658; Huggins v. People, supra; State v ... Houston, 29 S.C. 108, 6 S.E. 943; Trail v. State ... (Tex.Cr.App.) 57 S.W. 92. Here, the defendant purchased ... the diamond stud for $40, and it was shown to be worth about ... Possession ... of goods, proved to have been recently stolen, imposes on the ... possessor the onus of explaining ... ...
-
State v. Burns Et Ux
...or keeping, is, we think, likewise untenable. The law applicable is sufficiently fully stated in the case of State v. Houston, 29 S. C. 108, 112, 6 S. E. 943, 944 (Simpson, C. J.), as follows: "The general rule upon this subject is, that when the wife acts under actual constraint imposed by......
-
Kelly v. United States
... ... stolen from its owner, and admitting that he got possession ... of it soon afterwards at Columbia, S.C., and took it at once ... into the state of Georgia, defendant here urges as grounds ... for reversal, among other things: (1) That there is no ... evidence that he knew the car had been ... bearing and limited the application of the testimony relating ... to the price paid for the car. State v. Houston, 29 ... S.C. 108, 6 S.E. 943 ... Something ... is sought to be made of the exclusion, when first offered, of ... testimony designed to ... ...
-
State v. Sandle
... ... Trotti Glover and had paid him $4 for it. Upon the whole ... testimony, we think that the issue was properly submitted to ... the jury. The Court, therefore, committed no error in ... refusing to grant a new trial on this ground. See State ... v. Houston, 29 S.C. 108, 6 S.E. 943; State v ... Hamilton, 77 S.C. 383, 57 S.E. 1098; State v ... Daniels, 80 S.C. 368, 61 S.E. 1073; State v ... Rountree, 80 S.C. 387, 61 S.E. 1072, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., ... 833; State v. Winter, 83 S.C. 251, 65 S.E. 243; ... State v. Simon, 126 S.C. 437, 120 S.E. 230 ... ...
-
H. Receiving Stolen Goods
...would be a substantial disparity between the value of the goods and the consideration exchanged by their receiver. State v. Houston, 29 S.C. 108, 6 S.E. 943 (1888). Still, it must be remembered that the purpose of analyzing the surrounding circumstances is not to determine whether the hypot......