State v. Pruitt, 19617

Decision Date19 April 1973
Docket NumberNo. 19617,19617
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Allen Carroll PRUITT, Appellant.

Henry W. Kirkland and Theodore W. Law, Jr., Columbia, for appellant.

Sol. John H. Nolen and Asst. Sol. Milton A. Smith, Spartanburg, for respondent.

BUSSEY, Justice:

Appellant Pruitt was charged in two separate indictments with the murder of Douglas Chesney and William Henry 'Pappy' Gault. By agreement, he was tried simultaneously on both indictments, commencing March 1, 1972, in the Court of General Sessions for Spartanburg County. The jury found him guilty in both cases but recommended him to the mercy of the court, and he now appeals from his convictions and the resulting sentences of life imprisonment.

The murders with which the appellant is charged occurred on the night of December 29, 1971, the obvious motive therefor being robbery. Appellant was represented initially by counsel other than his present counsel. His trial was scheduled for February 21, 1971, but on February 14 his present counsel, who had by then been retained, moved for a continuance beyond the term, which motion was denied but a continuance was granted until March first when the trial was commenced.

Appellant states and argues four questions. As his first question he argues, collectively, asserted error in the refusal of his pretrial motions for a change of venue, a continuance beyond the term, and for an order committing him to the State Hospital for examination pursuant to Sec. 32--969 of the Code. He concedes that each of these motions was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, but in each instance argues that there was an abuse of discretion in the refusal of such motions. We do not deem his contention in his respect to be of sufficient merit to warrant a discussion seriatim of the several motions and the grounds therefor. Suffice it to say that the trial judge went very fully into each of these motions on the merits, even to the extent of taking considerable testimony, and the record simply fails to show any abuse of discretion on his part in denying any of the pretrial motions.

Appellant was arrested without a warrant some two or three hours after the murders and he urges, as his most serious question or contention on appeal, that the court erred in finding that probable cause existed at the time for his arrest. Early in the trial, counsel for appellant took the position that there was a lack of probable cause which would render inadmissible any evidence which resulted from the fact of arrest. Thereupon, the trial court held a rather full hearing upon the issue of whether or not there was probable cause to arrest the appellant existing at the time of the arrest. No useful purpose could be served here, we think, by reviewing all of the evidence, it being only necessary to state that His Honor's conclusion of the existence of probable cause for arrest is more than abundantly supported by the record.

Aside, however, from any question of probable cause, the record fails to show that any incriminating evidence was obtained as a result of or incidental to the arrest. The only thing of an evidentiary nature obtained was a pistol in the possession of the appellant which he voluntarily gave to the officers and which ballistics tests proved to be other than the murder weapon. Even had the arrest been without probable cause and, therefore, an unlawful one, such would not invalidate his conviction in the absence of tainted evidence having been obtained as a product of the unlawful arrest. State v. Swilling, 246 S.C. 144, 142 S.E.2d 864; State v. Holliday, 255 S.C. 142, 177 S.E.2d 541.

Relying on Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134, appellant argues that the arrest was illegal for lack of probable cause, and that any evidence subsequently discovered, even though not a product of the arrest, was not admissible in evidence. A short answer to this contention is that the cited decision simply does not support appellant's contention.

Under his third question, appellant argues that there was error in permitting the introduction into evidence of a pistol, a coat, and a bullet. With respect to the pistol, it was not the murder weapon, but the one voluntarily given by appellant to the officers at the time of his arrest. It was offered without objection and no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Tyner, 21040
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 23 Agosto 1979
    ...A trial has wide discretion in the admissibility of evidence. State v. Quillien, 263 S.C. 87, 207 S.E.2d 814 (1974); State v. Pruitt, 260 S.C. 396, 196 S.E.2d 107 (1973). The challenged exhibits were properly identified and relevant; therefore they were correctly admitted into (7) Appellant......
  • State v. Quillien, 19878
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 13 Agosto 1974
    ...unless clearly abused. State v. Hughey, 214 S.C. 111, 51 S.E.2d 376; State v. Chambers, 194 S.C. 197, 9 S.E.2d 549; State v. Pruitt, 260 S.C. 396, 196 S.E.2d 107. The prosecuting witness, Marie Gantt and another State witness, Derrick Gantt, testified that the Appellant was armed with a pis......
  • State v. Massey, 20292
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 19 Octubre 1976
    ...to whether a motion for a change of venue should be granted. State v. Galloway, 263 S.C. 585, 211 S.E.2d 885 (1975); State v. Pruitt, 260 S.C. 396, 196 S.E.2d 107 (1973); State v. Swilling, 249 S.C. 541, 155 S.E.2d 607 (1967). There is no rule which requires the court who considered appella......
  • State v. Smicklevich, 20405
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 18 Abril 1977
    ...his exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse thereof amounting to an error of law. State v. Pruitt,260 S.C. 396, 196 S.E.2d 107 (1973). ...

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