State v. Prince
| Decision Date | 01 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | 13359. |
| Citation | 162 S.E. 777,165 S.C. 115 |
| Parties | STATE v. PRINCE. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Anderson County; Hayne F. Rice, Judge.
Mrs Joe Prince was convicted of having in possession alcoholic liquors, and she appeals.
Affirmed.
H. C Miller, of Anderson, for appellant.
L. W Harris, Sol., of Anderson, for the State.
The defendant, Mrs. Joe Prince, and one Lewis Fuller were jointly indicted and tried for violation of the prohibition law. Mrs. Prince was convicted of having in possession alcoholic liquors, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six months. She appeals and complains that the trial judge committed error (1) in overruling her motion for a directed verdict, made upon the ground that there was "not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction," and (2) in failing to strike from the record certain testimony admitted over her objection.
The court's refusal to grant the motion for a directed verdict is made the basis of four exceptions, but as they raise but one question we shall consider them together. There is little dispute as to the facts. The sheriff of Anderson county, armed with a search warrant and accompanied by several deputies, went to the place of residence of one Joe Prince and his wife, the appellant, on the afternoon of October 22, 1931, for the purpose of making a search of the premises for contraband liquors; Prince himself was not at home, but the appellant was there, as were Fuller and several others. The sheriff testified that Mrs. Prince, before the search was made, told him, in response to a question, that if any whisky was on the premises, she did not know anything about it; but that later, when sixty-five gallons were found by the officers in one of the rooms of the house, she stated that she knew it was there, that Fuller had brought it a short while before the officers came, and had put it in the house against her wishes. Mrs. Prince, on her own behalf, testified that, while she knew, at the time the officers came, that the whisky was in the house, she had not consented to its being put there, but that Fuller had carried it in without her permission and over her protest. In reference to the sheriff's statement that she denied all knowledge of the presence of any whisky on the premises, she testified that he asked her where her husband's liquor was and she told him that Joe did not have any; that at the time several of her kin people were visiting her, but she did not have any one to send out to report to the sheriff about the whisky; and that, in addition, it had been put there only a few minutes before the officers arrived.
"The general rule is that if there is any evidence adduced by the state tending to prove the defendant's guilt, the case must be submitted to the jury." State v. Gellis, 158 S.C. 471, 155 S.E. 849, 855. See, also, State v. Johnston, 149 S.C. 195, 146 S.E. 657. In the case at bar, there was testimony tending to prove the charge as laid in the indictment, and the trial Court properly overruled the motion for a directed verdict.
The contention, made by exception 2, that the appellant being a married woman, living with her husband, it was not incumbent upon her to explain the presence of the whisky in her home, whether her husband was present or not, is without merit. In State v. Burns, 133 S.C. 238, 130 S.E. 641, 643, in which Burns and his wife were both convicted of storing and keeping contraband liquors in the place of their residence, this court, on appeal, said:
It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Parler
...that different conclusions as to such facts reasonably may be drawn therefrom, the issues should be submitted to the jury. State v. Prince, 165 S.C. 115, 162 S.E. 777; State v. Gellis, 158 S.C. 471, 155 S.E. State v. Rush, 129 S.C. 43, 123 S.E. 765.' The evidence in this case, as in most ca......
-
State v. Minor
... ... appellant was acting independently of her husband, and not ... under coercion by him, then she was responsible for her act ... under the law. See State v. Burns, 133 S.C. 238, 130 ... S.E. 641; State v. McMillan, 144 S.C. 121, 142 S.E ... 236; and State v. Prince, 165 S.C. 115, 162 S.E ... There ... was some testimony in the case to show that the appellant, in ... the handling of the intoxicating beverages, on which the ... indictment was based, acted independently of her husband, and ... that there was absolutely no kind of coercion ... ...
-
State v. Brown
...that different conclusions as to such facts reasonably may be drawn therefrom, the issues should be submitted to the jury. State v. Prince, 165 S.C. 115, 162 S.E. 777; State v. Gellis, 158 S.C. 471, 155 S.E. State v. Rush, 129 S.C. 43, 123 S.E. 765. The testimony for the prosecution strongl......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Monk
... ... and a settled rule of law, the latter must prevail. Perhaps ... in no case decided in this state is this qualification more ... forcibly expounded than in Carr v. Porter, 1 McCord, ... Eq. 60, upon which appellants ... [162 S.E. 912.] ... ...