State v. Manis

• Decision Date: 12 January 1949
• Docket Number: 16169.
• Parties: STATE v. MANIS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

51 S.E.2d 370

214 S.C. 99

STATE v. MANIS.

No. 16169.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 12, 1949

Sam N. Burts, C. Yates Brown and Thomas W. Whiteside, all of Spartanburg, for appellant.

Samuel R. Watt, Sol., of Spartanburg, for respondent.

BAKER Chief Justice.

On the night of February 26, 1948, the mill office of the Glendale Company at Glendale in Spartanburg County (also known as Glendale Mills), was entered through a window, the large safe therein broken open, and approximately $20,000 stolen therefrom. Almost immediately thereafter and, so far as the record discloses, with nothing on which to base the suspicion other than the fact that it was known that the appellant had on more than one occasion served time for 'safe cracking,' and about eighteen years prior thereto had resided in Spartanburg County, the officers of the law particularly the Sheriff of Spartanburg County, commenced to look for the appellant. Thereafter, and prior to the arrest of the appellant on April 4, 1948, at his home in Wolf Valley, Anderson County, Tennessee, on a 'fugitive from justice warrant,' a photograph or picture of the appellant had been identified, so it was testified, by T. M Howe and his wife, Mrs. Annie Howe, employees of Glendale Mills, as the man they had seen sitting in an automobile parked near the office of said mill, at about 10:20 o'clock on the night the crime was committed. We cannot ascertain from the record whether at that time a reward of $500 or more had been offered for the apprehension and conviction of the party guilty of this 'safe cracking,' and in fact there is no positive and direct testimony that such a reward was ever offered, although it is apparently not denied that such a reward was outstanding. We will hereinafter again refer to the testimony of the Howes.

For a conviction in this case, respondent relied wholly upon circumstantial evidence. The measuring stick in such instance is set forth in State v. Kimbrell, 191 S.C. 238, 4 S.E.2d 121, and followed and applied in State v. Dornberg, 192 S.C. 513, 7 S.E.2d 467; State v Edwards, 194 S.C. 410, 10 S.E.2d 587; State v Powell, 202 S.C. 432, 25 S.E.2d 479; State v. Takis, 204 S.C. 140, 28 S.E.2d 679, and other cases; and is as follows [191 S.C. 238, 4 S.E.2d 122]:

'Where it is undertaken by the prosecution in a criminal case to prove the guilt of the accused by circumstantial evidence, not only must the circumstances be proven, but they must point conclusively--that is, to a moral certainty--to the guilt of the accused; they must be wholly and in every particular perfectly consistent with each other, and they must further be absolutely inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis than the guilt of the accused. (Citing authorities.)

'Every circumstance which is relied upon by respondent as material must be brought to the test of strict proof. All of the facts proved must be consistent with each other, and, taken together, should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, producing a reasonable and moral certainty that the appellant and no one else committed the offense charged. It is not sufficient that they create a probability, though a strong one; and if, therefore, assuming all the facts to be true, which the evidence tends to establish, they may yet be accounted for upon any hypothesis which does not include the guilt of appellant, then the proof fails. The reason for this is that all presumptions of law, independent of evidence, are in favor of innocence, and every person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. As has often been stated, it is not sufficient to establish a probability of guilt arising from the doctrine of chances that the fact charged is likely to be true.'

At the conclusion of the testimony on behalf of respondent, the appellant moved for a direction of a verdict of not guilty, which motion was refused. Whereupon, the appellant offered no testimony. Indeed, he could have only entered a denial--not even a corroborated alibi--since the members of his household were not at home on the date the crime was committed, nor immediately before or after such date. The appellant's home was in a mountainous section of Tennessee, and we are not informed if the appellant had any near neighbors.

The indictment contained three counts, (1) Housebreaking and entering with intent to steal, (2) Grand larceny, and (3) Receiving stolen goods at the time knowing same to be stolen. The Court of its own motion directed a verdict of not guilty as to the third count, but as aforesaid, refused the motion for a direction of verdict of not guilty generally. The jury convicted the appellant on the remaining two counts, and after refusing a motion for a new trial, the trial Judge sentenced the appellant the limit on each count, that is, five and ten years, respectively, or a total of fifteen years, on the public works of Spartanburg County or for a like period in the State penitentiary.

The appellant's exceptions are:

'1. That His Honor, the Presiding Judge, erred in refusing defendant's motion for a directed verdict of not guilty (and motion for a new trial based thereon) at the close of the State's testimony, the error being that the evidence was entirely circumstantial and did not meet the requirements of the law as to a conviction upon circumstantial evidence in that it did not point so conclusively to the defendant's guilt as to preclude any other reasonable hypothesis and beyond a reasonable doubt, and did not point to his guilt to a moral certainty.

'2. That His Honor, the Presiding Judge, erred in admitting into evidence the entire first three paragraphs of a statement made by Virgil G. Manis, the error being that the said testimony as contained in the statement of Virgil G. Manis related entirely to facts occurring before the offense charged, were in no way connected with the offense charged, and was highly prejudicial in that it placed the defendant's character in issue by tending to show that he had committed other offenses of a similar nature.'

These exceptions require us to summarize and discuss the testimony.

With absolutely nothing on which to base his suspicion, immediately upon learning that the mill office and safe of Glendale Mills had been broken open and approximately $20,000 stolen therefrom, the Sheriff of Spartanburg County commenced to look for the appellant, calling to his aid all available law enforcement agencies, state and federal, although the appellant, so far as the Sheriff had any information at that time, had not been in Spartanburg County for eighteen years.

There came to his aid two most remarkable witnesses, T. M. Howe and his wife, Mrs. Annie Howe, who were able to recognize, first a photograph or picture of the appellant, and later the appellant when he was brought before them, as a man they had seen sitting in an automobile parked near the mill office at about 10 o'clock or shortly thereafter, on the night the crime was committed. The record does not disclose when a reward for the apprehension and conviction of the guilty party was publicized. But crediting Mr. and Mrs. Howe with all sincerity, their ability to keep in mind the features of one whom they had never before seen by not much more than a fleeting glance as they were passing an automobile in the nighttime, although within two or three feet of the automobile, especially when such one was wearing a hat pulled down over his face to an extent, and with no particular distinguishing marks or features, to say the least, is most dubious. Mr. and Mrs. Howe were employees of Glendale Mills and came to the mill to get excused from going to work on the 10 o'clock p. m. shift for the reason that they had two sick children. After being excused, they stood in the door of a nearby building and talked to the night watchman at the mill and noticed a car, with a man in it, parked in a place adjacent to the mill office where it was not usual for cars to park, and which they say aroused their suspicion, but not to the extent of calling to the watchman's attention the parked car. In going from this building to the bus stop in order to board a bus for their home, they passed close to the parked car and this was when they saw more clearly a man sitting under the steering wheel of the automobile--the one they later identified as the appellant. There was a light nearby, and Mrs. Howe at one place in her testimony said there was a light on in the automobile. (She later testified that there was no light on in the car.) Evidently she intended to convey the impression that the nearby light from the street, or a light which she said was on in the office (in this latter statement, the testimony conclusively shows that she was mistaken) was shining into the car. If the man sitting in the parked car had a light on in the car, we can dismiss the idea that this man was there waiting for an unlawful purpose. The man in this car had on a gray hat, partially pulled down over his face. There was nothing peculiar about this hat (it being a man's hat). But, these two witnesses say that they became even more suspicious of 'the man in the car' because they could tell in the nighttime that he was watching them, and yet they made no report to any one of such incident or of their suspicions until several days thereafter, and presumably after a reward had been offered. In his testimony Mr. Howe protested repeatedly, and even when unnecessary that the reward had not entered into his identification of the appellant as the occupant of the parked automobile. We are not informed of the circumstances under which these two witnesses recognized the picture of the appellant when it was exhibited to them along with...