State v. Mills

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: TAYLOR; BAKER, C. J., STUKES and OXNER, JJ., and BAKER
• Citation: State v. Mills, 225 S.C. 151, 81 S.E.2d 285 (S.C. 1954)
• Decision Date: 29 March 1954
• Docket Number: No. 16850,16850
• Parties: STATE v. MILLS.

Page 285

81 S.E.2d 285

225 S.C. 151

STATE v. MILLS.

No. 16850.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 29, 1954.

D. N. Rivers, Ridgeland, for appellant.

Sol. Randolph Murdaugh, Hampton, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Justice.

Appellant was tried and convicted in the General Sessions Court for Jasper County of having violated Section 1161 of the 1942 Code of Laws which appears as follows:

'Receiving stolen goods misdemeanor.--In all cases whatever, where any goods or chattels, or other property of which larceny may be committed, shall have been feloniously taken or stolen by any person or persons, every person who shall buy or receive any such goods or chattels or other property, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall be held and deemed guilty of, and may be prosecuted for, a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment, although the principal felon or felons be not previously convicted, and whether he, she or they is, or are, amenable to justice or not: provided, that when the chattel or other property stolen shall be of less value than twenty dollars, the punishment shall not exceed imprisonment in the county jail for thirty days, or a fine of not more than one hundred dollars.'

This appeal presents mainly the question of whether or not it was error to charge: 'The State must show guilt in knowledge of the Larceny beyond a reasonable doubt, by evidence tending to show that the goods were stolen upon inquiry or to arouse such suspicion as would put an ordinary person on inquiry.' We are very doubtful that the quoted portion of the charge is reported correctly by the court reporter; however, be that as it may, we are bound as it appears in the record.

It is contended that the test is not whether or not the circumstances under which the stolen goods were acquired were such as to impart such knowledge to one of ordinary reason and prudence but whether they were sufficient as to the Appellant.

In State v. Hamilton, 166 S.C. 274, 164 S.E. 639, 640, this Court stated:

'However, we do not understand that the rule of law of force goes so far as to authorize a conviction on such charge simply because the person receives the goods under such circumstances that a person of ordinary reason, judgment, and prudent would know that they were stolen. Under an indictment charging a person with receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, it is not a question of what effect the circumstances under which the goods were...