State v. Robbins, 21314
| Decision Date | 15 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 21314,21314 |
| Citation | 271 S.E.2d 319,275 S.C. 373 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. James Floyd ROBBINS, Appellant. |
Michael N. Duncan of Dunbar & Duncan, Spartanburg, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes, and State's Atty. Lindy Pike Funkhouser, Columbia, and Sol. Claude A. Taylor, Jr., Spartanburg, for respondent.
Appellant James Floyd Robbins appeals his conviction of armed robbery. We vacate the conviction and remand for a new trial.
The conviction grew out of an indictment wherein Robbins was charged with robbing a store. The primary question raised in this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in refusing Robbins' request to charge the law of alibi. In denying the request, the judge rationalized that Robbins testified he had been at the store that night. This is true, but his testimony was to the effect that he had been at the store prior to taking his wife to work at 10 o'clock. It was Robbins' further testimony that after taking his wife to work at 10 o'clock, he went straight home and, accordingly, was not at the store when the robbery is alleged to have taken place, about 10:45 p. m.
A charge on the defense of alibi is not required when an accused person merely denies committing the criminal act. Alibi means elsewhere, and the charge should be given when the accused submits that he could not have performed the criminal act because he was in another place at the time of its commission. The subject is treated in 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 136:
The evidence, viewed as a whole, creates the inference that Robbins was submitting to the court that he was elsewhere at the time of the robbery. Accordingly, his first exception must be sustained and a new trial ordered. The granting of a new trial makes treatment of the other issues unnecessary.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Disagreeing with the majority, I would affirm appellant's conviction for armed robbery.
A Mr. Zip store in Spartanburg County was robbed on December 17, 1978. The primary question is whether the trial judge erred in refusing to charge alibi.
The State presented direct evidence of appellant's guilt and his personal identity as perpetrator of the crime. He did not contest the question of his identity and, in fact actually bolstered the reliability of the victim's identification testimony. The appellant did not present testimony as to facts or circumstances which would have made it practically impossible for him to have been present at the time the crime was committed. His testimony was no more than a mere denial of the charges that he had robbed the convenience store. By his own admission he was at or near the scene of the crime at the time of the robbery and merely seeks to explain and account for his activities.
The presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed is obviously an essential element of the State's case, and the burden rests upon the State to prove his presence. There is no burden upon the defendant to prove he was at another place. State v. Floyd, 174 S.C. 288, 177 S.E. 375 (1934); State v. Mayfield, 235 S.C. 11, 109 S.E.2d 716 (1959).
The manner of proving an alibi is stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hope v. Cartledge, 15-7367
...the alibi testimony, and South Carolina law requires that an alibi charge be given under these circumstances. See State v. Robbins , 275 S.C. 373, 271 S.E.2d 319, 320 (1980) ; State v. Bealin , 201 S.C. 490, 23 S.E.2d 746, 756 (1943). Nevertheless, Hope's trial counsel failed to request an ......
-
Duckett v. State
...238 Or. 419, 395 P.2d 172, 173 (1964); Commonwealth v. Brunner, 341 Pa.Super. 64, 491 A.2d 150, 152-53 (1985); State v. Robbins, 275 S.C. 373, 271 S.E.2d 319, 320 (1980); Christian v. State, 555 S.W.2d 863, 864 (Tenn.1977); Jones v. State, 398 S.W.2d 753, 754 (Tex.1966).3 In Brooks v. State......
-
Shepard v. Padula
...It is not enough for the accused to say that he was not at the scene and must therefore have been elsewhere. State v. Robbins, 275 S.C. 373, 375, 271 S.E.2d 319, 320 (1980) citing 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 136 (emphasis added).Additionally, the Applicant only testified that he would not h......
-
Giesberg v. State
...Commonwealth v. Brunner, 341 Pa.Super. 64, 491 A.2d 150 (1985); State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 504 A.2d 480 (1986); State v. Robbins, 275 S.C. 373, 271 S.E.2d 319 (1980). While we are not bound by the opinion of these and other non-Texas courts in determining a question of Texas law, they ......
-
Chapter 26 Defenses and Lesser Included Offenses
...1984) (noting that "[m]ere denial of one's presence at the scene of a crime does not constitute an alibi"); see also State v. Robbins, 271 S.E.2d 319, 321 (S.C. 1980) (finding that evidence was sufficient to support charging jury with alibi defense where defendant testified that although he......
-
O. Alibi
...that the defendant was not at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed, but that he was in fact elsewhere. State v. Robbins, 275 S.C. 373, 271 S.E.2d 319 (1980). In Robbins, the Court quotes approvingly from 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 136 to the effect that the evidence must ind......
-
§ 6-19 Alibi
...defendant's presence at scene of drug transaction did not constitute alibi and thus did not warrant alibi instruction); State v.Robbins, 275 S.C. 373, 375, 271 S.E.2d 319, 320 (1980) ("A charge on the defense of alibi is not required when an accused person merely denies committing the crimi......
-
§ 6-21 Alibi
...defendant's presence at scene of drug transaction did not constitute alibi and thus did not warrant alibi instruction); State v. Robbins, 275 S.C. 373, 375, 271 S.E.2d 319, 320 (1980) ("A charge on the defense of alibi is not required when an accused person merely denies committing the crim......