State v. Reaves

• Decision Date: 01 December 1943
• Docket Number: 15593.
• Parties: STATE v. REAVES.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

28 S.E.2d 91

203 S.C. 501

STATE v. REAVES.

No. 15593.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 1, 1943

W D. Jenerette, of Mullins, for appellant.

J Reuben Long, of Conway, for respondent.

FISHBURNE Justice.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of manufacturing alcoholic liquors without a license, and sentenced to twelve months imprisonment, or to pay a fine of $750. He pleaded not guilty, and set up the defense of alibi.

A motion was made for the direction of a verdict of not guilty at the close of all of the evidence, and reversal is sought upon the ground that there is no evidence showing the guilt of the defendant.

On March 28, 1941, about 9:30 o'clock in the morning, two deputy sheriffs of Marion County, Wayne Norton and Rollie Smith, while passing the home of the defendant, Reaves, in their automobile, saw him approaching the highway in his car. As the deputies passed, they noticed some sacks and other things on the back seat of defendant's car, but at that time could not identify the articles as being corn or sugar or both. At any rate, their suspicions were aroused. They observed him through the rear vision mirror drive across the highway into the woods on the other side. They thereupon turned and followed him at a discreet distance. When the defendant had proceeded about two or three hundred yards, he stopped the car, got out, and the deputies saw him putting sugar and meal into several barrels; the sugar amounted to about 175 pounds. As the deputies approached the spot, the defendant jumped into his car and decamped.

The officers immediately communicated with the sheriff of the county, and when he arrived on the scene they made a thorough search of the woods. At the place where the defendant had been seen, seven barrels were discovered, buried in the ground, containing meal and sugar, and covered with pine straw. The defendant's truck was likewise there, in which were several mash barrels, and all of them smelled of whiskey. Farther in the woods about 200 yards away, the officers found 36 barrels or kegs, some of which contained beer and mash. They found at this point the site where a still had been set up and a pump had been put down. The distilling apparatus had been taken away.

Before the sheriff arrived, one of the deputies saw two sons of the defendant leave his house, located about 200 yards away, each with something in his arms. These boys were watched, and they were seen to turn around and stop close to a tobacco bed. When this place was searched the deputies found two kegs each containing ten gallons of what they called monkey rum or stump-hole liquor. The officers then obtained a search warrant and searched the dwelling house and premises of the defendant. They found in his yard nine kegs, and numerous empty jars. Some of the kegs had a strong odor of whiskey. These kegs were similar to the two in which they found the twenty gallons of whiskey. In the smokehouse they found 225 pounds of sugar and a copper worm, used in the equipment of a still to condense the whiskey.

The defendant operated a barbecue stand about 75 yards from the place where the officers said they saw him mixing the sugar and meal, and the evidence tends to show that the barrels of mash, the still site, the pump, and the defendant's truck were all on land rented, used or controlled by him.

The two questions involved in the appeal may briefly be stated thus: First, was it the defendant that the officers saw mixing sugar and meal at the mash barrels? Second, if the person seen there was the defendant, was he guilty of manufacturing liquor?

With reference to the first question, the defendant sought unsuccessfully to establish the defense of alibi. Under the evidence, the jury was amply warranted in finding that the appellant was the man that the officers saw mixing the ingredients used in the manufacture of liquor.

It is contended, however, that even if it be admitted that the person seen at the mash barrels was in fact the defendant, and that he was mixing sugar and meal in the barrels, this would not constitute manufacturing liquor.

In State v. Quick, 199 S.C. 256, 19 S.E.2d 101, 102 which was a case involving a prosecution for the unlawful manufacture of alcoholic liquors, we stated that the law does not concern itself with mere guilty intention unconnected with any overt...