State v. Schrock, No. 22175

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation283 S.C. 129,322 S.E.2d 450
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Daryl SCHROCK, Appellant. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 22175
Decision Date01 October 1984

Page 450

322 S.E.2d 450
283 S.C. 129
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Daryl SCHROCK, Appellant.
No. 22175.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Oct. 1, 1984.
Decided Oct. 31, 1984.

[283 S.C. 130] Asst. Appellate Defender, Stephen P. Williams, Columbia, for appellant.

Page 451

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Carolyn M. Adams, Columbia, and Sol. Joseph P. Mizzell, Jr., Orangeburg, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant, Daryl Schrock, was convicted of the murders of Mr. and Mrs. C.L. Strickland and was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. The issue on appeal is the trial judge's refusal to grant the Schrock motion for a directed verdict and a motion for summary judgment non obstante veredicto. We find that Schrock was entitled to a directed verdict and reverse.

Early on the morning of April 21, 1983, the Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department responded to the report of a fire at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Strickland. The Sheriff's investigation revealed the fire had nearly consumed the entire residence. [283 S.C. 131] The body of Mr. Strickland was found amid the remains of the burned home. The investigators found Mrs. Strickland's body floating in a small pond approximately two hundred feet from the residence. Autopsy reports revealed nothing about the cause of Mr. Strickland's death beyond the obvious fact of burning. According to the report, Mrs. Strickland died of drowning in combination with several blows to her head.

The police officers searched the area surrounding the house for evidence. Between the garage and the house, they found a footprint which was photographed. They made a plaster cast of the footprint. Additionally, they discovered palm prints on the handrail of the pond dock. The police officers also found an empty oil can, an old rolled-up newspaper, and several Marlboro cigarette butts on the premises.

Schrock gave the police officers a statement after his arrest on the following day and after being given Miranda warnings. Schrock stated that on the afternoon before the fire that night, he had caught a ride with Joe DeFino to the Chevrolet dealership in the town of North. He further stated that he left DeFino and walked down Water Ferry Road--the road which intersects with the long driveway to the Strickland residence--to Highway 178 toward Orangeburg and tried to buy some LSD. When he was not successful in that attempt, he spent the night in the woods. The next morning, he met Elike Harris Williamson and Frank Luther Bolen and went with them to the town of Salley to work on a house. He further stated that he knew nothing of the fire nor the murders.

At trial, the State produced numerous witnesses who testified they had seen Schrock the afternoon before the fire and the next morning. They all confirmed that he was wearing camoflagued pants, a T-shirt, tennis shoes and a denim jacket. The closest that any of the witnesses could place Schrock to the Strickland home was approximately one mile "as the crow flies" or three or four miles by road.

The State presented evidence in an effort to link Schrock to the deaths. An oil can which apparently had contained motor oil was admitted into evidence. Also cigarette butts found at the scene were admitted. Schrock admitted to officers that he smoked Marlboro brand cigarettes--the same brand as the ones found at the scene. Extensive tests were run on the cigarette butts by the Federal Bureau of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 practice notes
  • State v. Moore, No. 4247.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 18 Mayo 2007
    ...the evidence merely raises a suspicion that the accused is guilty. State v. Arnold, 361 S.C. 386, 605 S.E.2d 529 (2004); State v. Schrock, 283 S.C. 129, 132, 322 S.E.2d 450, 452 (1984); State v. Horne, 324 S.C. 372, 379, 478 S.E.2d 289, 293 (Ct.App.1996). "Suspicion" implies a belief or opi......
  • State v. Brannon, No. 4428.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 18 Julio 2008
    ...merely raises a suspicion that the defendant is guilty. State v. Arnold, 361 S.C. 386, 390, 605 S.E.2d 529, 531 (2004); State v. Schrock, 283 S.C. 129, 132, 322 S.E.2d 450, 452 (1984); State v. Horne, 324 S.C. 372, 379, 478 S.E.2d 289, 293 (Ct.App.1996). "`Suspicion' implies a belief or opi......
  • Smart v. Leeke, No. 87-7737
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 4 Mayo 1989
    ..."accused merely controverts the prosecutions' [sic] evidence" in an alibi case. Id. at 510, 23 S.E.2d at 755. See also State v. Schrock, 283 S.C. 129, 133, 322 S.E.2d 450, 452 For essentially the same South Carolina law refusing to classify "accident" as an affirmative defense but, rather, ......
  • State v. Wilds, No. 3668.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 21 Julio 2003
    ...The judge should grant a directed verdict motion when the evidence merely raises a suspicion that the accused is guilty. State v. Schrock, 283 S.C. 129, 132, 322 S.E.2d 450, 452 (1984); State v. Home, 324 S.C. 372, 379, 478 S.E.2d 289, 293 (Ct.App.1996). However, if there is any direct evid......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
59 cases
  • State v. Moore, No. 4247.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 18 Mayo 2007
    ...the evidence merely raises a suspicion that the accused is guilty. State v. Arnold, 361 S.C. 386, 605 S.E.2d 529 (2004); State v. Schrock, 283 S.C. 129, 132, 322 S.E.2d 450, 452 (1984); State v. Horne, 324 S.C. 372, 379, 478 S.E.2d 289, 293 (Ct.App.1996). "Suspicion" implies a belief or opi......
  • State v. Brannon, No. 4428.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 18 Julio 2008
    ...merely raises a suspicion that the defendant is guilty. State v. Arnold, 361 S.C. 386, 390, 605 S.E.2d 529, 531 (2004); State v. Schrock, 283 S.C. 129, 132, 322 S.E.2d 450, 452 (1984); State v. Horne, 324 S.C. 372, 379, 478 S.E.2d 289, 293 (Ct.App.1996). "`Suspicion' implies a belief or opi......
  • Smart v. Leeke, No. 87-7737
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 4 Mayo 1989
    ..."accused merely controverts the prosecutions' [sic] evidence" in an alibi case. Id. at 510, 23 S.E.2d at 755. See also State v. Schrock, 283 S.C. 129, 133, 322 S.E.2d 450, 452 For essentially the same South Carolina law refusing to classify "accident" as an affirmative defense but, rather, ......
  • State v. Wilds, No. 3668.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 21 Julio 2003
    ...The judge should grant a directed verdict motion when the evidence merely raises a suspicion that the accused is guilty. State v. Schrock, 283 S.C. 129, 132, 322 S.E.2d 450, 452 (1984); State v. Home, 324 S.C. 372, 379, 478 S.E.2d 289, 293 (Ct.App.1996). However, if there is any direct evid......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT