State v. Perry, 22004
| Decision Date | 09 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 22004,22004 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Alecia Katrena PERRY, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Asst. Appellate Defender Elizabeth C. Fullwood, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Martha L. McElveen and Carolyn M. Adams and Sol. James C. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant, Alecia Katrena Perry, was convicted of housebreaking with intent and sentenced to two years imprisonment. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow her to call Benjamin Ashford to the stand. We agree. The trial judge permitted Ashford, who had been charged with the same offense as appellant, to claim his Fifth Amendment privilege before taking the stand, even though Ashford was to be tried separately.
We held in State v. McGuire, 272 S.C. 547, 550, 253 S.E.2d 103, 105 (1979), "[a] judge may not invoke a witness's Fifth Amendment privilege; and, in any case, it is well settled that a witness who is not also a defendant can invoke that privilege only after the incriminating question has been put."
Although Ashford was to be tried for the same offense, he was not a defendant in appellant's trial. The trial judge should have allowed appellant to call Ashford to the stand, notwithstanding the fact that Ashford would have asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege when questioned.
Appellant also asserts that the trial judge erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict. We disagree. In State v. Haney, 257 S.C. 89, 92, 184 S.E.2d 344 (1971), this Court addressed an almost identical fact situation and determined that in the absence of evidence of other intent or explanation, the usual purpose of burglarizing a schoolhouse at night is theft.
In ruling on motions for directed verdict, a trial court is concerned only with the existence of evidence, not its weight. State v. Gunter, 273 S.C. 347, 256 S.E.2d 317 (1979); State v. Butler, 277 S.C. 452, 457, 290 S.E.2d 1 (1982).
Appellant was apprehended while attempting to flee the grounds of a school which had just been broken into. In addition, her purse was found by investigating officers at the point of entry. This created an issue for the jury.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gaskins, 22217
...order to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify. We are of the view that his ruling is inconsistent with State v. Perry, 279 S.C. 539, 309 S.E.2d 9 (1983) and State v. McGuire, 272 S.C. 547, 253 S.E.2d 103 (1979) wherein the Court [A] judge may not invoke a witness's Fifth Amen......
-
State v. Hughes, 24704
...... He cites two cases of this Court in support of his contention. See State v. McGuire, 272 S.C. 547, 253 S.E.2d 103 (1979) and State v. Perry, 279 S.C. 539, 309 S.E.2d 9 (1983). 2. In State v. McGuire, 272 S.C. 547, 253 S.E.2d 103 (1979), the defendant was indicted along ......
-
State v. Mathis
...on a motion for a directed verdict, a trial court is concerned only with the existence of evidence, not its weight. State v. Perry, 279 S.C. 539, 309 S.E.2d 9 (1983). The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Any evidence, direct or circumstantial, tending to pro......
-
State v. Houston
......Additionally, the intent. to commit a crime could be inferred from the breaking and. entering into the mobile home. See State v. Perry,. 279 S.C. 539, 309 S.E.2d 9 (1983) (holding that where the. defendant was apprehended while attempting to flee the. grounds of a ......