State v. Rickenbacker

• Citation: 135 S.E. 651,138 S.C. 24
• Decision Date: 26 November 1926
• Docket Number: 12110.
• Parties: STATE v. RICKENBAKER.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

135 S.E. 651

138 S.C. 24

STATE v. RICKENBAKER.

No. 12110.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 26, 1926

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Calhoun County; M. M Mann, Judge.

C. H Rickenbaker was convicted of possessing and storing alcoholic liquors, and he appeals. Affirmed.

D. S Murph and J. C. Hiott, both of St. Matthews, for appellant.

A. J Hydrick, Sol., of Orangeburg, for the State.

BLEASE J.

The defendant was indicted in the court of general sessions for Calhoun county, by the grand jury of said county, on a charge of having violated the prohibition law by having in his possession and storing alcoholic liquors.

The defendant was arrested on March 13, 1926. The grand jury returned an indictment Monday, the first day of the May term of the court thereafter. On Tuesday the defendant was called for trial and failed to answer in person or by attorney. A certificate from a practicing physician was handed the presiding judge, in the following language:

"This is to certify that Mr. C. H. Rickenbaker is confined to his bed by illness. I have visited him this morning and advised him to stay in bed."

There was no formal motion for a continuance, but we presume the defendant intended the certificate of the physician to be his motion therefor. The judge ordered that a bench warrant be issued for the defendant. It is stated in the record that the defendant was found in his field, superintending his laborers, by the deputies who were sent for him. Soon after being brought into the court, the accused was called for trial. There was no request for continuance. The defendant announced that he would plead guilty, and upon his arraignment he so pleaded.

After the plea of guilty had been published, the presiding judge inquired if the defendant desired to make any statement before sentence was passed. The defendant stated that he had had in his possession a small amount of whisky for his personal use; that he had been arrested by the federal authorities for having this whisky, had entered a plea of guilty in the federal court, and had paid a fine of $300 there placed upon him; that this was his first offense, and he asked for the mercy of the court.

After these statements made by the defendant, Judge Mann asked if there was any person in court who would like to say anything for or against the defendant. Thereupon, Mr. W. B. Hildebrand, a citizen of Calhoun county, made, in substance, the following unsworn statement:

"That defendant's farm adjoined his; that he had information that defendant was making liquor on his premises; that his farm labor would get drunk or sick off of his beer, and he was being thereby hindered in his farm work. That some time last fall he went to the defendant and requested him to stop making whisky and told him about his hands getting drunk, etc. Defendant replied, telling him, among other things, that he, defendant, sold whisky to the best people from St. George to Greenville, and that if he [Hildebrand] took a stand against him for making and selling whisky that he would not have friends enough to bury him. That he also told him that he was not going to quit making whisky. Mr. Hildebrand stated to the court that, inasmuch as the defendant said he did not intend to quit making whisky, he would like to ask the court to give him such sentence as, in the opinion of the court, would make him stop. Mr. Hildebrand also stated that he was present when the search was made and assisted the officers in making the search of Rickenbaker's premises; that there was found in his bathroom a five-gallon jug with two gallons of whisky in it, and a tin funnel on the table by the jug, and a number of fruit jars in and around the bathtub that had the smell of whisky in them, and in a small corn house near the dwelling, 18 two-quart fruit jars full of whisky."

No further statement was made in the court by the defendant or any other person. The defendant was then sentenced to serve one year on the public works of Calhoun county, or a like period in the state penitentiary, at such labor as he was able to perform; the sentence to begin on May 31, 1926.

The record shows that, at the same term of the court, several sentences for violation of the prohibition law were imposed by the presiding judge, the heaviest being one wherein a defendant was sentenced to serve six months' imprisonment, or to pay a fine of $250.

We judge from the record that there was no motion on the part of the defendant for a new trial, or any request that he be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty. The appeal to this court makes three exceptions, which will be stated as they are disposed of.

The first exception charges error because the court forced the defendant to go to trial, or to plead guilty, when he was ill and unable to go in court, in the face of the certificate of the physician, and requiring the defendant to be brought to court while he was under the care of a physician.

The record does not show that the defendant was "forced" to plead guilty. When he was arraigned, it was his privilege to plead guilty or not guilty. The defendant, when arraigned, did not ask for a continuance and did not inform the court that he was too ill to be tried. The fact that he was able to make a statement in the nature of a plea for the mercy of the court is convincing that he was also able to ask for a continuance, or to have informed the court that he was too ill to be present. In his statement requesting mercy, he made no reference...