State v. McFadden, 19534
| Decision Date | 11 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 19534,19534 |
| Citation | 193 S.E.2d 536,259 S.C. 616 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Robert McFADDEN, Appellant. |
Jefferies & Wise, Greenwood, for appellant.
Sol. William T. Jones, Jr., Greenwood, for respondent.
Appellant, McFadden, was charged with the offenses of housebreaking, larceny and receiving stolen goods, but was convicted by the jury only of larceny. The appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and that, if not entitled to a judgment of acquittal, he is entitled to a new trial.
On the night of December 5, 1971, shortly after 7 P.M., a new house, still under construction in a subdivision known as Magnolia Place in Greenwood County, was broken into, there being stolen therefrom a heater and certain lighting fixtures. Co-defendants of appellant, Sisk and Haynie, had entered pleas of guilty in connection with the aforesaid crimes prior to the trial of appellant. Sisk was called as a witness for the State and Haynie was called as a witness by appellant.
Admittedly, the three defendants went together to the scene of the crimes in a car belonging to Sisk but driven by McFadden. There is evidence to the effect that Sisk and Haynie alighted from the car near the house and that McFadden left the scene driving the Sisk car prior to the actual commission of any crime and never returned to the scene, having run the Sisk automobile into a ditch quite some distance away from the scene. It is McFadden's contention that he knew nothing of any intent on the part of either Sisk or Haynie to commit any crime until he overheard a conversation between them after stopping the car for the purpose of allowing one or both of them to answer a call of nature; that he did not want to become involved and promptly left the scene without any intention of returning, aiding, abetting or assisting in any manner whatsoever. There is abundant evidence, however, we think, from which it is reasonably inferable that McFadden was quite aware that at least larceny was intended before they reached the scene, and that it was his intent to aid and abet his co-defendants in committing the larceny by dropping them off, driving around and picking them up after the commission of the offense. Additionally, there is the testimony of a deputy sheriff, who lived nearby, that he saw and recognized the appellant, whom he knew, in the yard of the house entered shortly after the same had been entered. A further review of the testimony would, we think, serve no useful purpose. It is well settled that where there is any substantial evidence which tends to prove the guilt of the accused, or from which his guilt may fairly and logically be deduced, it becomes the duty of the trial judge to submit the case to the jury. See cases collected in West's South Carolina Digest, Criminal Law, k753.
Appellant next contends that the verdict acquitting him of housebreaking but convicting him of grand larceny is hopelessly inconsistent and as a matter of law cannot be allowed to stand; and that he is, accordingly, entitled to a new trial. He cites and relies on the fairly recent case of State v. Amerson, 244 S.C. 374, 137 S.E.2d 284. Under the principles enunciated and/or applied in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gause v. Smithers
... ... We agree. This is a question of first impression in this State. Only a limited number of jurisdictions have adopted the family purpose doctrine. 3 See Jacobson ... ...
-
State v. Alexander
...e.g. State v. Amerson, 244 S.C. 374, 137 S.E.2d 284 (1964); State v. Mercado, 263 S.C. 304, 210 S.E.2d 459 (1974); State v. McFadden, 259 S.C. 616, 193 S.E.2d 536 (1972); State v. Duck, 210 S.C. 94, 41 S.E.2d 628 (1947); State v. Williams, 202 S.C. 408, 25 S.E.2d 288 (1943); and State v. Go......
-
State v. Lynn
...whether to allow the contradictory testimony will not be disturbed on appeal except for manifest abuse of discretion. State v. McFadden, 259 S.C. 616, 193 S.E.2d 536 (1972); Elliott v. Black River Elec. Co-op., 233 S.C. 233, 104 S.E.2d 357 (1958). There was no abuse of discretion; the trial......
-
State v. Mayfield, 21356
...discretion of the trial judge and his ruling thereon will not be disturbed except for manifest abuse of that discretion. State v. McFadden, 259 S.C. 616, 193 S.E.2d 536. In view of the vague, general nature of the alleged contradictory testimony and the question as to its inconsistency, the......