State v. Poinsett

Decision Date26 October 1967
Docket NumberNo. 18718,18718
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Freeman POINSETT, Appellant.

Finney & Gray, Sumter, for appellant.

Solicitor, J. M. Long, Jr., Conway, Atty. Gen., Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen., Emmett Clair, Columbia, for respondent.

MOSS, Chief Justice.

Freeman Poinsett, the appellant herein, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Georgetown County at the 1966 September term of court, and charged with (1) assault with intent to kill and (2) pointing and discharging a firearm at Benton Roberts, Jr. and J. A. Beverley, police officers, in violation of Section 16--141 of the Code. When this case was called for trial the appellant made a motion to require the State to elect on which of the two counts in the indictment it would go to trial. The motion was granted and the State elected to go to trial upon the second count contained in the indictment. The appellant was tried, convicted and senteced upon this count of the indictment and from such appeals to this court.

The record shows that on July 9, 1966, a warrant of arrest was issued by the mayor of the Town of Andrews charging the appellant with a violation of Section 16--105 of the Code by interfering with police officers Wilson Wiggins and James Beverley while they were attempting to make an arrest in the Town of Andrews. At approximately 12:30 A.M. Sunday, July 10, 1966, officers of the Town of Andrews went to the home of the appellant for the purpose of serving the aforesaid warrant and arresting him. The State asserts that the appellant, in resisting the service of the warrant, pointed a pistol and discharged same at the officers above named.

The appellant has filed a number of exceptions to the rulings of the trial judge. Many of these have been abandoned and we will consider only the ones that are applicable to the questions argued in the brief of the appellant.

It is position of the appellant that the warrant charging him with a violation of Section 16--105 of the Code could not be served upon him on Sunday. He invokes Section 17--259 of the Code which provides as follows:

'No criminal process shall be served on Sunday, except for treason, felony, violation of the law relating to intoxicating liquors or breach of the peace.'

The appellant challenges the jurisdiction of the Court of General Sessions of Georgetown County on the ground that the indictment was unlawful because it charged an offense which arose out of an attempted illegal service of a warrant in violation of the foregoing cited section of the Code. The appellant further alleges that the court erred in refusing to submit to the jury a charge that if they found from the testimony that the warrant was being served on Sunday morning that the officers were not acting within the scope of their authority and were, in fact, trespassers upon his property.

The appellant, by his testimony, denied that he pointed a pistol or discharged same while the officers were attempting to serve a warrant upon him. The testimony in behalf of the State is to the contrary.

A person has a right to resist an unlawful arrest even to the extent of taking the life of the aggressor if it be necessary in order to regain his liberty. State v. Bethune, 112 S.C. 100, 99 S.E. 753; State v. Robertson, 191 S.C. 509, 5 S.E.2d 285. However, when an officer holds a valid warrant for the arrest of a person, and when it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Peer
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 5 December 1995
    ...the peace" is a generic one embracing a great variety of conduct destroying or menacing public order and tranquility. State v. Poinsett, 250 S.C. 293, 157 S.E.2d 570 (1967). In general terms, it is a violation of public order, a disturbance of the public tranquility, by any act or conduct i......
  • State v. Simms, Appellate Case No. 2013–001219.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 10 June 2015
    ...conduct inciting to violence, which includes any violation of any law enacted to preserve peace and good order.State v. Poinsett, 250 S.C. 293, 297, 157 S.E.2d 570, 571 (1967) (citation omitted); see also Randolph, 239 S.C. at 83, 121 S.E.2d at 350 (“Breach of the peace is a common law offe......
  • In re Jeremiah W.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 6 January 2003
    ...inciting to violence, which includes any violation of any law enacted to preserve peace and good order." State v. Poinsett, 250 S.C. 293, 297, 157 S.E.2d 570, 571, 572 (1967). However, the crux of the offense, and "[w]hether [the] conduct constitutes a breach of the peace depends on the tim......
  • Baker v. Garner
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 30 August 2022
    ...arrest even to the extent of taking the life of the aggressor if it be necessary in order to regain his liberty.” State v. Poinsett, 157 S.E.2d 570, 571 (S.C. 1967). Under the defense of habitation, “defending one's home or premises means ending an unwarranted intrusion through the use of r......
  • 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