State v. Rouse, 19848
| Decision Date | 02 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 19848,19848 |
| Citation | 262 S.C. 581,206 S.E.2d 873 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Leroy Jerome ROUSE, Appellant. |
George A. Payton, Jr., Charleston, for appellant.
Solicitor Robert B. Wallace and Asst. Solicitor Capers G. Barr, III, Charleston, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted, as charged under a two-count indictment, of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and indecent exposure, receiving a sentence for each offense to run concurrently. He appeals, charging error (1) in the refusal of a motion to require the State to elect on which count it would proceed to trial, (2) in denying a motion for a directed verdict of not guilty as to assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature; (3) in refusing a motion for a mistrial because of alleged prejudicial arguments of the Solicitor to the jury, and (4) in alleged limitations placed by the court on the scope of cross-examination permitted by appellant's counsel. We find no merit in any of the exceptions and affirm the judgment.
The prosecuting witness, a young lady, worked for a business establishment in the City of Charleston, South Carolina. On June 20, 1973, about 2 p.m., while she was about her duties with her back turned, appellant made physical contact with her in an offer of sexual intercourse and, when she protested and called for others in the store to summon the police, he made indecent sexual demonstrations with the exposed private parts of his body.
Under these facts the trial judge properly refused to require the State to elect between the counts in the indictment.
An assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, as here charged, involved the element of taking indecent liberties with a female, State v. Williams, 257 S.C. 257, 185 S.E.2d 529; while the offense of indecent exposure consists of the exposure of private parts of the person to the public view, Section 16--413, 1962 Code of Laws, as amended. In the charge of assault and battery there is the element of indecent liberties with a female, with is not necessary in the charge of indecent exposure. Indecent exposure involves the exposure of the private parts to public view, which is unnecessary to the establishment of assault and battery. $yBoth offenses charged arose out of the same transaction, but each involves elements not necessary to the proof of the other. The charges, although arising out of the same transaction, are therefore separate and distinct; and the State was not required to elect on which it would proceed to trial. State v. Greuling, 257 S.C. 515, 186 S.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Goolsby
...to take the stand in his own defense, Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965); State v. Rouse, 262 S.C. 581, 206 S.E.2d 873 (1974), under either version of the comments there is no specification by the Solicitor, either direct or indirect, that we can see w......
-
Edmond v. State
...S.C. 110, 268 S.E.2d 31 (1980), overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E.2d 315 (1991); State v. Rouse, 262 S.C. 581, 206 S.E.2d 873 (1974). In particular, the State may neither comment upon nor present evidence at trial of a defendant's decision to exercise his......
-
State v. Arther, 22621
...or indirectly on a defendant's failure to take the stand. State v. Goolsby, 275 S.C. 110, 268 S.E.2d 31 (1980); State v. Rouse, 262 S.C. 581, 206 S.E.2d 873 (1974); State v. Robinson, 238 S.C. 140, 119 S.E.2d 671 (1961). Because the fifth amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimina......
-
State v. Sweet
...Clearly, the comment referenced Sweet's failure to testify and was not merely a comment on the evidence. Cf. State v. Rouse, 262 S.C. 581, 584-85, 206 S.E.2d 873, 874 (1974) (holding solicitor's closing argument statement, "As I stated earlier it is uncontradicted what happened in that stor......