State v. Lawhorn, 19061
| Decision Date | 28 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19061,19061 |
| Citation | 254 S.C. 275,175 S.E.2d 233 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Bobby Joe LAWHORN and Henry Barton, of whom Bobby Joe Lawhorn is, Appellant. |
H. F. Partee and William T. Toal, Greenville, for appellant.
County Sol. C. Victor Pyle, Greenville, for respondent.
The defendant-appellant Bobby Joe Lawhorn was indicted for housebreaking and larceny and convicted by a jury of larceny at the April 1969 term of the Greenville County Court. He appeals from such conviction and resulting sentence.
On the night of June 14, 1968 Childs General Merchandise Store at Travelers Rest, South Carolina, was broken into by a thief or thieves and merchandise of the value of about $3,000.00, consisting of wearing apparel for men, women and children, was stolen. Appellant, with his wife, was living in a bedroom at the home of his stepfather, Marshall Johnson, at Marietta on Talley Bridge Road in Greenville County. Several officers armed with a search warrant proceeded to search the premises of Marshall Johnson where they found a considerable portion of the merchandise admittedly taken from the Childs store. Some of such was found in a currently unoccupied small house near the Johnson residence, some of it recovered from the trunk of an automobile, and some from the bedroom occupied by appellant and his wife. The stolen articles recovered from the bedroom were partly in a clothes hamper at the foot of the bed and partly in a dresser drawer in that bedroom. The articles recovered from the bedroom filled a box 15 15 20 . Appellant was asleep on the bed at the time of the search.
At the trial appellant was represented by retained counsel, but on this appeal is represented by other counsel appointed by the Court. Appellant's first contention here is that the evidence secured in the search of the premises occupied by him should not have been introduced in evidence because the search warrant was based, allegedly, on a constitutionally insufficient affidavit. Such contention is not properly before the Court. The record shows that the validity of the search warrant was not questioned on this ground below and, moreover, all of the recovered stolen property was introduced into evidence without objection, it being stipulated by counsel for appellant that such was in fact stolen from the Childs store.
It is well settled in this State that if objections are not interposed to the introduction of evidence, such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lee, 19152
...not interposed to the introduction of evidence, such question or objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Lawhorn, 254 S.C. 275, 175 S.E.2d 233. The appellant called one Eugene Cusaac as a witness in his behalf. Cusaac testified that he went to the store of Wilbur V......
-
State v. Jackson
...relationship to the property.' United States v. Johnson, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 433 F.2d 1160, 1164 (1970). In State v. Lawhorn, 254 S.C. 275, 175 S.E.2d 233 (1970) (dicta) the defendant, with his wife, lived in a bedroom in his stepfather's home. Evidence was found in a clothes hamper and dr......
-
State v. Willard
...106, 62 S.E.2d 100; State v. Warren, 207 S.C. 126, 35 S.E.2d 38, State v. Wardlaw, 153 S.C. 175, 150 S.E. 614); * * *.' In State v. Lawhorn, S.C., 175 S.E.2d 233, we held that if objections are not interposed to the introduction of evidence, such questions or objections cannot be raised for......