State v. Lee

• Decision Date: 02 July 1888
• Citation: 29 S.C. 113,7 S.E. 44
• Parties: State v. Lee.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

7 S.E. 44

(29 S.C. 113)

State

v.Lee.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 2, 1888.

Criminal Law—Trial—Instructions.

On a trial for larceny it is not error for the court to refuse to advise the jury that they ought not to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices, and to tell them that the question of accomplices is not involved, as no accomplice has been introduced as a witness; such being the fact.

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Darlington county; J. H. Hudson, Presiding Judge.

Robert Lee and Sarah Dudley were indicted for larceny. On trial, Lee was convicted, and the jury failed to agree as to Dudley. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, and from the judgment and sentence of the court, defendant Lee appeals.

Belton O'Neall Townsend, for appellant. H. H. Newton, for the State.

Simpson, C. J. An indictment was handed out by the solicitor, at the March term of the court of general sessions, 1888, for Darlington county, against the defendant, Robert Lee, Charlotte Purris, and Sarah Dudley, charging them (1) with burglary; and (2) for grand larceny. The grand jury returned said indictment indorsed, "True bill for grand larceny." When the case was called for trial, the solicitor stated that, through a mistake, Charlotte Purris had been included in the indictment, when she had not been bound over by the trial justice for the crimes alleged, but had been as a witness. He therefore entered a nolle prosequi as to her, and she was used as a witness for the state. The appellant's counsel, in the beginning of his argument, said that the case was one where the evidence of accomplices (Julia Ann Sanders and Charlotte Purris) was relied on for conviction; and that he would say, subject to correction by his honor, that it was the duty of the court, when such evidence is relied on, to advise the jury that, while theyhad the power, yet that they ought not to convict upon such testimony unless it was corroborated, in material particulars, by other evidence, which was not the case here. Robert Lee was convicted; the jury stating that they could not agree as to Sarah Dudley Robert Lee appealed, alleging as error that his honor declined to charge that, while the evidence of an accomplice is competent, it was his duty, as a judge, to advise them not to convict on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, and that he erred in charging that the question in reference to accomplices was not involved, as no accomplice had been put up as...