State v. McGhee
Citation | 135 S.E. 59,137 S.C. 256 |
Decision Date | 14 October 1926 |
Docket Number | 12082. |
Parties | STATE v. McGHEE et al. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Kershaw County; J. K Henry, Judge.
Charlie McGhee and another were convicted for setting fire to an unoccupied dwelling house belonging to defendant Charlie McGhee, and they appeal. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
The opinion of Mr. Justice Cothran in State v. Des Champs omitting the first paragraph, is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Floyd
... ... burden of disproving the defense of alibi, is, perhaps, a ... little inaptly stated in the exception, but it is in ... practical accord with the present rule, adhered to in this ... state, as to the effect of that defense. This [174 S.C ... 294] court, in the case of State v. McGhee, 137 S.C ... 256, 135 S.E. 59, for the first time expressly declared that ... an alibi was not an affirmative defense, as it had been ... theretofore long held. In the McGhee Case, the opinion of Mr ... Justice Cothran in State v. Deschamps, 134 S.C. 179, ... 131 S.E. 420, on the matter ... ...
-
State v. Bealin
...adopted that opinion in the case in which it was then concerned. In that case this Court also said; at page 260 of the State reports, at page 60 of 135 S.E.: rule heretofore announced respecting the defense of alibi has been in substance as follows: The state must prove beyond a reasonable ......
-
State v. Perry
...its potency as a defense from the fact that it involves the physical impossibility of the accused's guilt”).8 See State v. McGhee, 137 S.C. 256, 260–61, 135 S.E. 59, 60 (1926) (stating the requirement of imposing the burden of proving alibi on the defendant is “illogical,” and adopting the ......
-
State v. West
...in that defendant's favor and he should be acquitted. The appellants contend that under the authority of the recent case of State v. McGhee, 137 S.C. 256, 135 S.E. 59, the charge was erroneous. Undoubtedly, the charge was not accord with the case cited. It was in harmony with the law as rec......