State v. Sheriff
| Decision Date | 27 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10835. |
| Citation | 110 S.E. 807,118 S.C. 327 |
| Parties | STATE v. SHERIFF. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Oconee County; George E. Prince, Judge.
Matthew Sheriff was convicted of housebreaking and larceny, and he appeals. Reversed, and a new trial ordered.
Shelor & Hughs, of Walhalla, for appellant.
L. W. Harris, Sol., of Anderson, for the State.
There should be a new trial upon the ground that the appellant was charged in the indictment as a principal, and the evidence tends to show that, if he was guilty of any offense at all, it was that of having been an accessory before the fact.
The common law, as well as sections 919, 920, Criminal Code, recognizes the distinction between principals and accessories before the fact and, while the punishment is the same for each, that does not change the essential distinction or relieve the necessity of the appropriate allegations in an indictment.
"In the absence of statute authorizing a contrary procedure, an accessory must be indicted as such, whether he is indicted with the principal felon or separately." 22 Cyc. 360.
There is nothing in the Criminal Code in conflict with this conclusion; on the contrary, by the careful discrimination between principals and accessories contained in the sections above referred to, and the directions in reference thereto, the implication is strong that the above rule should be followed.
The circuit judge appears to have been led into error by the case of Hartsville v. McCall, 101 S.C. 277, 85 S.E. 599, which was a case of misdemeanor, where all are principals. Even in a case of that kind I think that the indictment should declare the facts as they are the legal conclusion following.
As there was no motion for a directed verdict, the court is limited to a reversal of the judgment and the ordering of a new trial.
WATTS, J., did not participate on account of sickness.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Blakely, 5114.
...be treated the same as if he was the principal of the crime, but the accessory may not be convicted as both. See State v. Sheriff, 118 S.C. 327, 328, 110 S.E. 807, 807 (1922) (noting the common law and the criminal code recognize the “distinction between principals and accessories before th......
-
State v. Griggs
... ... brief quotes section 1937 of the Code of 1932, and states ... that the Davis and Kennedy Cases were prior to 1912. The ... identical statute appears in the General Statutes of South ... Carolina of 1871, as section 2 of chapter 137 ... The ... case of State v. Sheriff, 118 S.C. 327, 110 S.E ... 807, cited by appellant, was decided upon the facts of that ... case, as shown by the opening paragraph of the opinion ... There ... is nothing in the record from which the jury could have ... concluded that appellant actually fired the shot that ... ...
-
State v. Jennings
... ... appellant set up the plea of former jeopardy, based on what ... had occurred upon the previous trial, which plea, however, ... was overruled by the presiding judge, Hon. John S. Wilson ... The ... appellant, being remanded to the custody of the sheriff of ... Sumter county by the order of the court to await trial on the ... last mentioned indictment against him, then applied to the ... writer of this opinion, under habeas corpus proceedings, for ... his discharge from custody, alleging that he was wrongfully ... detained, for the reason that ... ...