State v. Shackelford

Decision Date02 August 1955
Docket NumberNo. 17048,17048
Citation228 S.C. 9,88 S.E.2d 778
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Robert SHACKELFORD, Appellant.

A. L. King, Georgetown, for appellant.

J. Reuben Long, Sol., Conway, for respondent.

LEGGE, Justice.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced in the Court of General Sessions for Georgetown County for violation of the statutes relating to the manufacture of alcoholic liquor and to its possession for unlawful purposes.

For the state, deputy sheriff Carter testified that on the afternoon of October 9, 1954, about three-thirty o'clock, in a swamp near appellant's home, he came upon appellant and two other Negro men in the act of operating a liquor still; that he watched the operation from behind a tree within 25 feet of the still; that he recognized appellant, whom he had known for several years, but did not recognize the others; that when he stepped from behind the tree and called to them they all fled; and that, having destroyed the still, he procured a warrant for appellant's arrest and arrested him that night. The state's only other witness, deputy sheriff Wallace, testified that he had accompanied Carter to the vicinity but was some distance away, in the woods, when Carter came upon the still, and that he did not see any of the men.

For the defense, appellant was the only witness; and his testimony was to the effect that he knew nothing of the matter, and that at the time of the alleged offense he was at the home of a friend, one Lucille McCants.

In his closing argument to the jury, the solicitor commented upon the defendant's failure to offer Lucille McCants as a witness in support of his alibi, whereupon counsel for the defendant moved for a mistrial upon the ground that such argument was improper and prejudicial. This motion having been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Primus
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 10, 2000
    ...witnesses who are or should be aware of relevant information. Douglas v. State, 332 S.C. 67, 504 S.E.2d 307 (1998); State v. Shackelford, 228 S.C. 9, 88 S.E.2d 778 (1955). However, where the defendant produces no evidence on his behalf, it is improper for the prosecutor to comment on the de......
  • Cowan v. McCall
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • August 22, 2011
    ...No.17-9 at 9-10) (citing Douglas v. State, 504 S.E.2d 307 (S.C. 1998), State v. Bamberg, 240 S.E.2d 639 (S.C. 1977), and State v. Shackelford, 88 S.E.2d 778 (S.C. 1955)). After careful review of the record and consideration of the surrounding circumstances and the strength of the State's ca......
  • State v. Charping
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 23, 1998
    ...594, 325 S.E.2d 323 (1985) (no error in allowing solicitor to comment on defendant's failure to produce his wife); State v. Shackelford, 228 S.C. 9, 88 S.E.2d 778 (1955) (not improper for prosecutor to comment upon defendant's failure to produce witnesses, accessible to the accused, or unde......
  • In re Gonzalez
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 3, 2014
    ...594, 325 S.E.2d 323 (1985) (no error in allowing solicitor to comment on defendant's failure to produce his wife); State v. Shackelford, 228 S.C. 9, 88 S.E.2d 778 (1955) (not improper for prosecutor to comment upon defendant's failure to produce witnesses, accessible to the accused, or unde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Rule 1103. Title and Effective Date
    • United States
    • South Carolina Evidence Annotated (SCBar) Chapter 1 South Carolina Rules of Evidence Article XI. Miscellaneous Rules
    • Invalid date
    ...594, 325 S.E.2d 323 (1985) (no error in allowing solicitor to comment on defendant's failure to produce his wife); State v. Shackelford, 228 S.C. 9, 88 S.E.2d 778 (1955) (not improper for prosecutor to comment upon defendant's failure to produce witnesses, accessible to the accused, or unde......
  • Rule 1103. Title and Effective Date
    • United States
    • South Carolina Evidence Annotated (SCBar) (2019 Ed.) Chapter 1 South Carolina Rules of Evidence Article XI. Miscellaneous Rules
    • Invalid date
    ...594, 325 S.E.2d 323 (1985) (no error in allowing solicitor to comment on defendant's failure to produce his wife); State v. Shackelford, 228 S.C. 9, 88 S.E.2d 778 (1955) (not improper for prosecutor to comment upon defendant's failure to produce witnesses, accessible to the accused, or unde......
  • Rule 1103. Title and Effective Date
    • United States
    • South Carolina Evidence Annotated (SCBar) (2021 Ed.) Chapter 1 South Carolina Rules of Evidence Article XI. Miscellaneous Rules
    • Invalid date
    ...594, 325 S.E.2d 323 (1985) (no error in allowing solicitor to comment on defendant's failure to produce his wife); State v. Shackelford, 228 S.C. 9, 88 S.E.2d 778 (1955) (not improper for prosecutor to comment upon defendant's failure to produce witnesses, accessible to the accused, or unde......
  • § 1- Evidence Miscellaneous Annotations
    • United States
    • South Carolina Evidence Annotated (SCBar) (2020 Ed.) Chapter 1 South Carolina Rules of Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...594, 325 S.E.2d 323 (1985) (no error in allowing solicitor to comment on defendant's failure to produce his wife); State v. Shackelford, 228 S.C. 9, 88 S.E.2d 778 (1955) (not improper for prosecutor to comment upon defendant's failure to produce witnesses, accessible to the accused, or unde......

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