State v. Rountree
Decision Date | 27 June 1908 |
Citation | 61 S.E. 1072,80 S.C. 387 |
Parties | STATE v. ROUNTREE et al. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Barnwell County; R. W Memminger, Judge.
I. W Rountree and another were convicted of receiving stolen goods, and they appeal. Reversed and remanded.
C. A Best and Bates & Simms, for appellants.
James E. Davis and P. T. Hildebrand, for the State.
The appellants, I. W. Rountree and James F. Rountree, were found guilty of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen under an indictment against them and Jim Stevens, containing two counts, the first charging grand larceny against the three defendants, and the second charging the two defendants, I. W. Rountree and James F. Rountree, with receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen. At the commencement of the trial, and before the introduction of testimony, a motion was made to require the solicitor to elect upon which of the two counts he would rely, as the defendants contended they were inconsistent. His honor refused to require the solicitor to make his election at that time, but, after the testimony in behalf of the state was introduced, ruled that he must elect upon which count he would proceed, whereupon the solicitor announced that he would rely upon the second count. A motion was then made to direct a verdict, on the ground that there was no evidence sufficient to convict upon the second count, but it was overruled. The defendants I. W. Rountree and James F. Rountree thereupon proceeded to introduce their testimony.
The first question that will be considered is whether his honor the presiding judge, erred in refusing to compel the solicitor to elect upon which count he would proceed, when the motion was first made. 1 Archbold's Cr. Pr. & Pl. 295-298. 10 Enc. of Pl. & Pr. 551, 552. State v. Nelson, 14 Rich. Law, 169, 94 Am. Dec. 130. There was no necessity for compelling the solicitor to make his election at any time in this case, as a general verdict, under proper instructions, would not have been a ground for a new trial or in arrest of judgment. State v. Smith, 18 S.C. 149. The foregoing authorities show that the ruling of the presiding judge was more favorable to the appellants than they could demand as a legal right, and that the exception raising this question...
To continue reading
Request your trial