State v. Rutledge, No. 17373
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | OXNER; STUKES |
| Citation | 232 S.C. 223,101 S.E.2d 289 |
| Parties | , 67 A.L.R.2d 747 The STATE, Respondent, v. Harold RUTLEDGE, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 17373 |
Page 289
v.
Harold RUTLEDGE, Appellant.
Page 290
[232 S.C. 224] George L. Grantham, Easley, Price & Poag, Greenville, for appellant.
James R. Mann, Sol., Greenville, for respondent.
[232 S.C. 225] OXNER, Justice.
Three indictments were returned against appellant. In one he was charged with receiving on August 7, 1955, cigarettes stolen from the Edewald Grocery Store, knowing the same to have been stolen. In another he was charged with receiving on August 8, 1955, cigarettes stolen from Charlie Gibbs Store, knowing the same to have been stolen. The remaining indictment contained two counts. In the first count appellant was charged with conspiring with William Hoyt Mathis, Bobby Joe Masters and Mike Horton, on August 22, 1955, to commit the crime of larceny, and in the second count with receiving cigarettes and money stolen from the store of George H. Senn by Mathis, Masters and Horton, knowing the same to have been stolen. By agreement, the three cases were tried together. A motion by counsel for appellant for a directed verdict was refused. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all three indictments and found that the value of the property in each of the two indictments first above mentioned was less than $20. Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years on the indictment charging conspiracy and receiving stolen goods and was sentenced to serve thirty days or pay a fine of $100 on each of the other cases, the sentences to run concurrently.
At the time of the trial appellant was engaged in the business of operating two cafes in Pickens County, one a drive-in near the town of Pickens and the other in the town of Central. He also formerly operated a cafe at Brevard, North Carolina. To support a conviction on each indictment, the State relied largely, if not altogether, on the testimony of Mathis, Masters and Horton. It appears from their testimony that shortly after Mathis, who was then about 24 years of age, lost his job at Brevard, North Carolina, and was [232 S.C. 226] greatly in need of money, he was told by appellant whom he had known for some time that he (appellant) could 'handle some cigarettes and canned meats.' Mathis replied that he 'didn't want to fool with it' as he had been in trouble before. A few days later he was again approached by appellant and told that he would be given a good price for some cigarettes and meat. Shortly thereafter Mathis ran across Horton, then about 18 years of age, and the two of them broke into a store in North Carolina and stole cigarettes and other property. Later they induced Masters, a 17 year old boy, to join them. These three broke into numerous stores, some located in North Carolina and others in South Carolina. On at least four different occasions the stolen property was brought to appellant who bought same at a price considerably less than the wholesale market.
The testimony fully sustains the conspiracy charge and also clearly justifies the inference that appellant knew he was receiving stolen property.
The first question raised is that a conviction cannot stand upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Such is not the law in South Carolina. The weight to be given the testimony of an accomplice is for the fact finding body and if his uncorroborated evidence satisfies the jury of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a conviction is warranted. State v. Green, 48 S.C. 136, 26 S.E. 234; State v. Sowell, 85 S.C. 278, 67 S.E. 316; State v. Whaley, 113 S.C. 103, 101 S.E. 568; State v. Johnson, 156 S.C. 63, 152 S.E. 825; State v. Fleming, 228 S.C. 129, 89 S.E.2d 104.
The next question is whether a defendant who receives with guilty knowledge in South Carolina property stolen in North Carolina may be prosecuted in this State under Section 16-362 of the 1952 Code,
Page 291
which reads in part as follows: 'In all cases whatever when any goods or chattels or other property of...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crawford, No. 3933.
...unknown, did exist." McAninch & Fairey 481. A conspiracy to commit a crime does not merge with the completed offense. State v. Rutledge, 232 S.C. 223, 101 S.E.2d 289 (1957); see also Ferguson at 303-04, 70 S.E.2d at 356-57 (observing that a conspiracy does not merge with a completed crime, ......
-
State v. Hollman, No. 17409
...been stolen. Cf. In re Powell, 241 N.C. 288, 84 S.E.2d 906; State v. Coppenburg, 2 Strob. 273, 33 S.C.L. 273; State v. Rutledge, S.C., 101 S.E.2d 289. 'The state cannot divide a single identical offense into two offenses and impose two punishments for one and the same act. * * * It is there......
-
State v. Tumbleston, No. 4312.
...Pierce, 263 S.C. 23, 27, 207 S.E.2d 414, 416 (1974); State v. Quarles, 261 S.C. 413, 417, 200 S.E.2d 384, 386 (1973); State v. Rutledge, 232 S.C. 223, 225, 101 S.E.2d 289, 292 (1957). Therefore, an indictment passes legal muster when it charges the crime substantially in the language of the......
-
DeBose v. People, No. 24592
...(1962); LePrell v. State, 124 So.2d 18 (Fla.App.1960); Commonwealth v. Evans, 190 Pa.Super. 179, 154 A.2d 57 (1959); State v. Rutledge, 232 S.C. 223, 101 S.E.2d 289 (1957); People v. McManis, 122 Cal.App.2d 891, 266 P.2d 134 (1954); State v. Oats, 32 N.J.Super. 435, 108 A.2d 641 (1954); Sta......
-
State v. Crawford, 3933.
...unknown, did exist." McAninch & Fairey 481. A conspiracy to commit a crime does not merge with the completed offense. State v. Rutledge, 232 S.C. 223, 101 S.E.2d 289 (1957); see also Ferguson at 303-04, 70 S.E.2d at 356-57 (observing that a conspiracy does not merge with a completed crime, ......
-
State v. Tumbleston, 4312.
...Pierce, 263 S.C. 23, 27, 207 S.E.2d 414, 416 (1974); State v. Quarles, 261 S.C. 413, 417, 200 S.E.2d 384, 386 (1973); State v. Rutledge, 232 S.C. 223, 225, 101 S.E.2d 289, 292 (1957). Therefore, an indictment passes legal muster when it charges the crime substantially in the language of the......
-
State v. Hollman, 17409
...been stolen. Cf. In re Powell, 241 N.C. 288, 84 S.E.2d 906; State v. Coppenburg, 2 Strob. 273, 33 S.C.L. 273; State v. Rutledge, S.C., 101 S.E.2d 289. 'The state cannot divide a single identical offense into two offenses and impose two punishments for one and the same act. * * * It is there......
-
DeBose v. People, 24592
...(1962); LePrell v. State, 124 So.2d 18 (Fla.App.1960); Commonwealth v. Evans, 190 Pa.Super. 179, 154 A.2d 57 (1959); State v. Rutledge, 232 S.C. 223, 101 S.E.2d 289 (1957); People v. McManis, 122 Cal.App.2d 891, 266 P.2d 134 (1954); State v. Oats, 32 N.J.Super. 435, 108 A.2d 641 (1954); Sta......