State v. Long, No. 14638.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtFISHBURNE
Citation195 S.E. 624
PartiesSTATE. v. LONG.
Decision Date11 March 1938
Docket NumberNo. 14638.

195 S.E. 624

STATE.
v.
LONG.

No. 14638.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 11, 1938.


[195 S.E. 624]

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Pickens County; G. Dewey Oxner, Judge.

George W. Long was convicted of involuntary manslaughter growing out of an automobile collision, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Wyche & Burgess, of Greenville, for appellant.

Robert T. Ashmore, of Greenville, and Mann & Mann, of Pickens, for the State.

FISHBURNE, Justice.

The appellant, George W. Long, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter growing out of an automobile collision, and appeals to this court upon several exceptions, from the judgment below.

On October 2, 1936, the appellant and a companion, E. K. Lewis, of Greenville, went to High Hampton, N. C, in the latter's car, on a business mission. After spending the day there, they left High Hampton late in the afternoon, and somewhere along the route on the way back to Greenville, procured a quantity of corn whisky, in a fruit jar. They stopped at a filling station between the town of Pickens and the town of Easley, where they drank some of the liquor. The testimony for the defense tends to show that at that time the appellant was sober, and. that he took only one drink at the filling station. Several persons who were present there testified that as far as they could judge, he had not drunk any whisky prior to reaching the filling station. The appellant and Mr. Lewis testified that the appellant had not drunk any whisky before stopping at the filling station. It appears, however, that Mr. Lewis had taken several drinks, and that when leaving this service station

[195 S.E. 625]

the appellant took the driver's seat and started toward Greenville, about dark. He drove the automobile through the town of Easley, and to a point about three or four miles beyond Easley, where, at another filling station, he drove the car entirely off the pavement to his right, where he collided with and killed Lee Standridge, who was squatting at the rear wheel of his own car, at least eight feet from the pavement.

The appellant contended at the trial that as he approached Ellison's filling station he saw a car there, with headlights burning, facing in his direction, directly upon the pavement in his lane of travel, on his right-hand side of the highway. That he approached this point upon his proper side of the road, and that as he neared this car, which it later developed belonged to a Mr. Bowie, there was another car coming from the same direction, and that he thought both cars were in motion approaching him. To avoid a collision the appellant says that he drove his car to the right, off the pavement, over toward the filling station, where the deceased, Lee Standridge, was squatting, near the rear wheel of his automobile, and where he was struck and killed. Appellant's car passed between the Bowie car and the Standridge car, and in so doing struck and crushed the left fender of Bowie's car. The estimated distance between these two cars, according to the State's testimony, wals about six feet. Appellant further says that when he struck Bowie's car he thought that both of the cars referred to continued in motion, and that they passed on up the highway. The appellant did not stop to investigate or make any inquiry, but proceeded on down the highway toward Greenville.

Witnesses for the State testified that the Bowie car was parked on its left-hand side of the highway, two feet away from the pavement. The defense testimony placed it two feet on the pavement. The evidence of Mr. Perrin, a state highway engineer who was the first person to arrive upon the scene immediately after Standridge was killed, and who testified for the appellant, was to the effect that as he approached this filling station in his car, the lights of the Bowie car shone brightly in his face, and that this fact caused him to stop and drive his car off the highway into the filling station, in the same direction that the appellant had driven his car. That when he got out and learned that someone had been killed, he went over to Mr. Bowie's car and told the latter that if he did not move his car from the highway, it might result in the death of someone else.

The contention of the State was that the appellant was under the influence of intoxi eating liquor, and that he was driving his car at a high and reckless rate of speed, proximately resulting in the death of Standridge. The contention of the appellant was that he was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor; that he was driving the car at a moderate and careful rate of speed, when he was suddenly confronted by an automobile on his side of the highway, and, in an effort to avoid a collision, drove his car off the pavement, and unavoidably struck the deceased.

The officers who arrested the appellant shortly after the accident testified that he was then under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

The issue of intoxication was in dispute, like all the other issues in the case. The Pickens county...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Simmons v. State, No. 20001
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 28, 1975
    ...whatsoever of express malice.' 1 A brief review of the Recent cases involving deaths by motor vehicles are: State v. Long, 186 S.C. 439, 195 S.E. 624 (1938); State v. McCracken, 211 S.C. 52, 43 S.E.2d 607 (1947); State v. Rachels, 218 S.C. 1, 61 S.E.2d 249 (1950); State v. Clary, 222 S.C. 5......
  • State v. Mimms, No. 5252.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 30, 2014
    ...upon the public highway by a person while intoxicated is not only malum prohibitum, but malum in se.” State v. Long, 186 S.C. 439, 446–47, 195 S.E. 624, 627 (1938).‘It is true the statute forbids it and provides a penalty, but this in no way determines whether it is only malum prohibitum. T......
  • State v. Mimms, Appellate Case No. 2012-212931
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 30, 2014
    ...upon the public highway by a person while intoxicated is not only malum prohibitum, but malum in se." State v. Long, 186 S.C. 439, 446-47, 195 S.E. 624, 627 (1938). 'It is true the statute forbids it and provides a penalty, but this in no way determines whether it is only malum prohibitum. ......
  • State v. Mimms, 2014-UP-489
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 30, 2014
    ...upon the public highway by a person while intoxicated is not only malum prohibitum, but malum in se." State v. Long, 186 S.C. 439, 446-47, 195 S.E. 624, 627 (1938). 'It is true the statute forbids it and provides penalty, but this in no way determines whether it is only malum prohibitum. Th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Simmons v. State, No. 20001
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 28, 1975
    ...whatsoever of express malice.' 1 A brief review of the Recent cases involving deaths by motor vehicles are: State v. Long, 186 S.C. 439, 195 S.E. 624 (1938); State v. McCracken, 211 S.C. 52, 43 S.E.2d 607 (1947); State v. Rachels, 218 S.C. 1, 61 S.E.2d 249 (1950); State v. Clary, 222 S.C. 5......
  • State v. Mimms, No. 5252.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 30, 2014
    ...upon the public highway by a person while intoxicated is not only malum prohibitum, but malum in se.” State v. Long, 186 S.C. 439, 446–47, 195 S.E. 624, 627 (1938).‘It is true the statute forbids it and provides a penalty, but this in no way determines whether it is only malum prohibitum. T......
  • State v. Mimms, Appellate Case No. 2012-212931
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 30, 2014
    ...the public highway by a person while intoxicated is not only malum prohibitum, but malum in se." State v. Long, 186 S.C. 439, 446-47, 195 S.E. 624, 627 (1938). 'It is true the statute forbids it and provides a penalty, but this in no way determines whether it is only malum prohibitum. ......
  • State v. Mimms, 2014-UP-489
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 30, 2014
    ...the public highway by a person while intoxicated is not only malum prohibitum, but malum in se." State v. Long, 186 S.C. 439, 446-47, 195 S.E. 624, 627 (1938). 'It is true the statute forbids it and provides penalty, but this in no way determines whether it is only malum prohibitum. Th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT