State v. Oliver, 21242

• Decision Date: 28 May 1980
• Docket Number: No. 21242,21242
• Citation: 275 S.C. 79,267 S.E.2d 529
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent. v. Arnold OLIVER, Willie Williams and Carl Williams, of which Arnold Oliver is theAppellant. The STATE, Respondent, v. Carl WILLIAMS, (Two Cases) Appellant.

Page 529

267 S.E.2d 529

275 S.C. 79

The STATE, Respondent. v. Arnold OLIVER, Willie Williams and Carl Williams, of which

Arnold Oliver is theAppellant.

The STATE, Respondent, v. Carl WILLIAMS, (Two Cases) Appellant.

No. 21242.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 28, 1980.

George Anderson, and B. Henderson Johnson, Jr., of Williams & Johnson, Aiken, for appellant Arnold Oliver.

Staff Atty. Tara D. Shurling, of S. C. Commission of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant Carl Williams.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes and Kay G. Crowe, Columbia, and Sol. Sylvia W. Westerdahl, Aiken, for respondent.

LEWIS, Chief Justice:

Appellants Arnold Oliver and Carl Williams were jointly indicted with Willie Williams for conspiracy to commit housebreaking and grand larceny. Their codefendant Willie Williams entered a plea of guilty, and they were tried and convicted by a jury. They contend in these appeals that the evidence was insufficient to establish their guilt and consequently the trial judge erred in refusing their motions for a directed verdict.

Conspiracy is defined by Section 16-17-410, Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976 as " . . . a combination between two or more persons for the purpose of accomplishing a criminal or unlawful object or an object neither criminal nor unlawful by criminal or unlawful means."

The State relied upon circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of appellants.

We have held that a formal express agreement is not necessary to establish the conspiracy, and that it may be shown by circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the parties. State v. Fleming, 243 S.C. 265, 133 S.E.2d 800.

In determining whether the Court erred in refusing to direct a verdict we must consider all of the facts and circumstances in the light most favorable to the State for the purpose of determining whether the evidence is "susceptible of a reasonable inference that could have convinced a jury, properly charged on the burden of proof and the law relative to circumstantial evidence," that appellants were guilty of conspiracy as charged. State v. Chandler, 267 S.C. 138, 226 S.E.2d 553.

Although there is no direct evidence that appellants and their codefendant had a mutual understanding to commit housebreaking and larceny, the facts and circumstances are susceptible to the reasonable inference that they did in fact conspire to commit the unlawful acts.

Two homes were broken into on Sunday afternoon, October 29, 1978, in Aiken County, South Carolina, one the home of a Mr. Bradley and the other a Mrs. Sullivan. Appellants and their codefendant Willie Williams were charged with conspiracy to break and enter these homes.

The testimony showed that defendant Willie Williams, who pled guilty to conspiracy, rented a U-Haul truck in Augusta, Georgia, about October 18, 1978. He did not return the truck and later, on October 29, 1978, he, with two other blacks, driving a U-Haul truck, purchased gasoline at a filling station in Appling, Georgia, about 40 to 50 miles from the scene of the crimes here involved. They were given a Texaco card receipt for the purchase. This ticket was later, on the same day, found near one of the crime scenes. The filling station attendant could not identify the occupants of the truck, but said that one was small, another was fat, and could not recall the third. She remembered that one man had a jacket and a hat, but did not remember the colors.

A Mr. Cushman testified that on Sunday afternoon, October 29, the same...