State v. Livingston
| Decision Date | 15 December 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 16693,16693 |
| Citation | 223 S.C. 1,73 S.E.2d 850 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. LIVINGSTON. |
Hugo S. Sims, Jr., Orangeburg, for appellant.
Julian S. Wolfe, Sol., Orangeburg, for respondent.
Appellant was tried and convicted of the crime of murder at the May, 1952, term of General Sessions Court for Orangeburg County and sentenced to be executed as provided by law.
The indictment in this case charged the appellant, Calause Livingston, Clarice Parlor and Junior Perry jointly with the murder of one Tom Cartin on or about March 30, 1952. Upon the case being called for trial, motion was made and granted for a severance and continuance on behalf of Junior Perry for the purpose of committing him to the State Hospital for a mental examination. Motion was then made for a continuance and severance of the case of Clarice Parlor which was refused and a motion was then made and refused for a continuance in behalf of the appellant on grounds which will be hereafter discussed. The defendants, Livingston and Parlor, were placed on trial which resulted in a verdict of guilty as to Clarice Parlor with the jury recommending mercy. Such verdict carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. The verdict as to appellant was guilty (the jury not recommending mercy) making it mandatory that he be sentenced to death by electrocution; and he now appeals to this Court contending: first, that it was error for the trial Judge, over defendant's objections, to permit the introduction of defendant's confession into the evidence in that it was not voluntarily obtained and, therefore, in violation of the defendant's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Second, that the trial Judge erred in refusing to grant his motion for a directed verdict of not guilty in that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict without the illegally obtained confession. Third, that the trial Judge erred in charging the jury that it is 'my duty to rule upon whether or not it (the confession) should be admitted into evidence and yours to say what weight and effect should be given to it once it has been admitted' in that the jury had the right to reject the confession if it came to the conclusion that the confession was not voluntary. Fourth, that the trial Judge erred in refusing, under the circumstances, to grant the defendant's motion to continue the case.
The testimony shows that all of the persons involved in this case, together with the deceased, Tom Cartin, lived in a small community near North, South Carolina; that on the evening of March 30, 1952, at approximately 10 o'clock P. M., a car was observed driving in to the old Cartin home place, from the highway, which was near where Tom Cartin lived with his sister. The horn was sounded and Tom Cartin left his brother and sister and proceeded toward the car carrying with him his flashlight. He was not seen or heard from until April 2, 1952, when his body was found in a stream several miles away. The finding of the body was reported to the sheriff and an investigation followed. The deceased had suffered multiple blows about the head, several of which were sufficient to cause death and was identified as Tom Cartin by his sister. The investigation continued unabated from this date but no arrest was made until April 10, 1952, when appellant was taken into custody at his home and carried to Columbia, S. C., approximately forty miles distance, to the headquarters of the State Constabulary.
It had been established that a great portion of the upholstery in appellant's car had been cut out and was missing and stains were found on the remaining portion which appeared to be blood. The flashlight which Mr. Cartin carried with him at the time of his death was found burned and in a field behind appellant's barn. He stated to the officers that the spots in his car were blood spots but that they were there as a result of his children bleeding at the nose because of whooping cough. While being questioned at the Constabulary headquarters, he stated that his car had been used in the robbery and murder by Clarice Parlor and Junior Perry but that he had nothing to do with it other than lending them his car. As a result of this statement Clarice Parlor and Junior Perry were arrested by the Orangeburg County authorities and appellant was brought back to North by the State Constabulary for the purpose of being confronted by Perry and Parlor who were brought there by the officers of Orangeburg County. The presence of the officers together with the prisoners in this small community attracted some attention. In order to have privacy and to be in the vicinity under investigation, the officers drove to and out on the runway of the airport. All three talked freely of their part in the crime stating that appellant first struck the deceased with a stick while in the car at the old home place; that during the struggle the deceased and appellant got out of the car where deceased was struck on the head with a brick by Junior Perry, his money taken from his pockets and divided three ways by appellant, his body placed in appellant's car and carried to Jerusalem Creek and thrown into the stream by the three at a point several yards upstream from where it was found. Appellant stated that several days after he had divided the money, Parlor asked him to keep his share for him and he buried it in a tin can at the base of a tree. He then directed officers to the place where they found the can containing $60. He also related that he had burned the deceased's hat and the brick with which he was struck and thrown the brick under his house. After making these statements, appellant requested that he be permitted to visit his home so that he could see his family and tell his wife what he had done. This request was granted and he was permitted to see them before returning to Columbia that night. He further told the officers that they had previously planned to kill the deceased and that this was the third time they had been to see him that day; that they were buying whiskey from him and that all were drinking at the time of the slaying. The amount taken from the person of Mr. Cartin was $250 and on the ground at the scene of the killing as described by appellant was found a fifty cent piece, a dime and three pennies.
These statements were made shortly after dark at the North Airport. After they were checked and he had visited with his family, appellant was returned to Columbia; and shortly after midnight at the Constabulary Headquarters, he signed the confession as it appears in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Von Dohlen
... ... State v. Childs, 299 S.C. 471, 385 S.E.2d 839 (1989). On appeal, the conclusion of the trial judge as to the voluntariness of a confession will not be reviewed unless so erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion. State v. Livingston, 223 S.C. 1, 73 S.E.2d 850 (1952), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 959, 73 S.Ct. 944, 97 L.Ed. 1379 (1953) ... As was noted by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in[322 S.C. 244] Miller v. Fenton, 796 F.2d 598, 604-605 (3rd Cir.) cert. denied479 U.S. 989, 107 S.Ct. 585, 93 L.Ed.2d 587 ... ...
-
Jackson v. Denno, 62
...5 L.Ed.2d 570 (after trial judge decides the confession is admissible, jury may pass on the question of voluntariness). State v. Livingston, 223 S.C. 1, 73 S.E.2d 850, cert. denied, 345 U.S. 959, 73 S.Ct. 944, 97 L.Ed. 1379. State v. Scott, 209 S.C. 61, 38 S.E.2d 902 (question is for the ju......
-
State v. Britt
...of such discretion to the prejudice of the appellant. State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C. 405, 95 S.E.2d 857, 66 A.L.R.2d 263; State v. Livingston, 223 S.C. 1, 73 S.E.2d 850, and State v. Mishoe, 198 S.C. 215, 17 S.E.2d 142. The basis of the appellants' motions was that they could not obtain a fa......
-
State v. Bullock
...abuse of discretion to the prejudice of the appellant. State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C. 405, 95 S.E.2d 857, 66 A.L.R.2d 263; State v. Livingston, 223 S.C. 1, 73 S.E.2d 850; State v. Mishoe, 198 S.C. 215, 17 S.E.2d 142; and State v. Livingston, 233 S.C. 400, 105 S.E.2d 73, 76. We quote from the......