State v. Moultrie, No. 22172

CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtNESS; LITTLEJOHN
Citation322 S.E.2d 663,283 S.C. 352
Docket NumberNo. 22172
Decision Date10 September 1984
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Earl T. MOULTRIE, Appellant. . Heard

Page 663

322 S.E.2d 663
283 S.C. 352
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Earl T. MOULTRIE, Appellant.
No. 22172.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Sept. 10, 1984.
Decided Oct. 22, 1984.

Page 664

[283 S.C. 353] Elizabeth C. Fullwood, Asst. Appellate Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Columbia, Sol. Randolph Murdaugh, Jr., Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, of Hampton, for respondent.

[283 S.C. 354] NESS, Justice:

Appellant Earl Moultrie was convicted of housebreaking and grand larceny. We affirm.

Appellant broke a window and entered an appliance and tire store during the night. Before he was apprehended he moved one tire outside the building and two tires thirty-three feet from the tire rack.

Choosing to represent himself, appellant entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. After examination at the State Hospital, he was found competent to stand trial.

Appellant alleges he was precluded from adequately conducting his insanity defense because the trial court refused his request to subpoena four Columbia physicians. We disagree.

Insanity must be established at the time of the crime in order to serve as a defense. State v. Law, 270 S.C. 664, 244 S.E.2d 302 (1978). The Columbia physicians stopped treating appellant four months before the offense and seven months prior to the trial. The trial judge properly ruled their testimony would have no probative value about appellant's condition at the time the offense occurred.

The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless abuse is shown. State v. Woomer, 276 S.C. 258, 277 S.E.2d 696 (1981).

Appellant next maintains the evidence was insufficient to prove grand larceny because he was successful in getting only one of the three tires outside the premises. We disagree.

Grand larceny consists of the felonious taking and carrying away of the goods of another, where the value exceeds $200. See State v. Sweat, et al., 221 S.C. 270, 70 S.E.2d 234 (1952); State v. Brown, 274 S.C. 48, 49, 260 S.E.2d 719 (1979); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-13-30 (1983 Cum.Supp.). Although "[t]he asportation of the stolen property is an indispensable element of the offense,--the slightest removal of the [property] with felonious intent fulfills this requirement." State v. Tindall, 213 S.C. 484, 489, 50 S.E.2d 188 (1948).

[283 S.C. 355] Appellant concedes he moved the three tires at least...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Joseph v. State, No. 25539.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 14, 2002
    ...$200. See S.C.Code Ann. § 16-13-30 (1985) (stating petit larceny involves stolen goods whose value is less than $200); State v. Moultrie, 283 S.C. 352, 322 S.E.2d 663 (1984) (grand larceny is felonious taking and carrying away of goods of another, where value exceeds $200).2 Robbery is defi......
  • State v. Parker, No. 25538.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 14, 2002
    ...grand larceny is the felonious taking and carrying away of the goods of another, where the value exceeds $1,000. See State v. Moultrie, 283 S.C. 352, 322 S.E.2d 663 (1984) (grand larceny is felonious taking and carrying away of goods of another where value exceeds $200).3 Robbery is defined......
  • State v. Smith, No. 1771
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • January 16, 1992
    ...VI. The trial judge committed no abuse of discretion in admitting the ax and a photograph thereof in evidence. See State v. Moultrie, 283 S.C. 352, 322 S.E.2d 663 (1984) (the admission of evidence in a criminal prosecution is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbe......
  • Johnson v. Williams, C/A No. 0:18-673-BHH-PJG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • October 15, 2018
    ...of the offense . . . the slightest removal of the [property] with felonious intent fulfills this requirement.' " State v. Moultrie, 322 S.E.2d 663, 664 (S.C. 1984) (quoting State v. Tindall, 50 S.E.2d 188, 190 (S.C. 1948)) (alterations in original). Thus, plea counsel accurately testif......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Joseph v. State, No. 25539.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 14, 2002
    ...$200. See S.C.Code Ann. § 16-13-30 (1985) (stating petit larceny involves stolen goods whose value is less than $200); State v. Moultrie, 283 S.C. 352, 322 S.E.2d 663 (1984) (grand larceny is felonious taking and carrying away of goods of another, where value exceeds $200).2 Robbery is defi......
  • State v. Parker, No. 25538.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 14, 2002
    ...grand larceny is the felonious taking and carrying away of the goods of another, where the value exceeds $1,000. See State v. Moultrie, 283 S.C. 352, 322 S.E.2d 663 (1984) (grand larceny is felonious taking and carrying away of goods of another where value exceeds $200).3 Robbery is defined......
  • State v. Smith, No. 1771
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • January 16, 1992
    ...VI. The trial judge committed no abuse of discretion in admitting the ax and a photograph thereof in evidence. See State v. Moultrie, 283 S.C. 352, 322 S.E.2d 663 (1984) (the admission of evidence in a criminal prosecution is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbe......
  • Johnson v. Williams, C/A No. 0:18-673-BHH-PJG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • October 15, 2018
    ...of the offense . . . the slightest removal of the [property] with felonious intent fulfills this requirement.' " State v. Moultrie, 322 S.E.2d 663, 664 (S.C. 1984) (quoting State v. Tindall, 50 S.E.2d 188, 190 (S.C. 1948)) (alterations in original). Thus, plea counsel accurately testif......
  • 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