State v. Smalls, 19549
| Decision Date | 16 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 19549,19549 |
| Citation | 260 S.C. 44,194 S.E.2d 188 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Edward M. SMALLS, Appellant. |
Philip Middleton and deRossett Myers, Charleston, for appellant.
Sol. Robert B. Wallace and Asst. Sol. A. Arthur Rosenblum, Charleston, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted in the General Sessions Court for Charleston County of assault with intent to ravish, with a recommendation to mercy, and received a sentence of twenty-four (24) years. His appeal from that judgment and sentence presents two questions, but only one need be decided. That question is: Did the trial judge err in refusing to instruct the jury that testimony as to appellant's prior criminal record could only be considered in determining his credibility as a witness, and was not to be considered as having any bearing on the question of guilt?
It is well established in this State that, when an accused becomes a witness in a criminal proceeding, he is subject to the same duties and liabilities of witnesses generally; and evidence of prior convictions of crimes involving moral turpitude may be introduced into evidence on the issue of his credibility. State v. Millings, 247 S.C. 52, 145 S.E.2d 422.
Upon direct examination of appellant, his counsel, anticipating the exposure by the prosecution of appellant's prior criminal record, elicited from appellant the fact that he had been previously convicted of the crimes of robbery, grand larceny, and housebreaking. At the conclusion of the charge to the jury, the trial judge refused a request to instruct the jury that evidence of appellant's prior criminal record could only be considered on the issue of his credibility as a witness and not upon the question of his guilt. Appellant contends that the failure to give the requested instruction constituted prejudicial error in that, without such instruction, the jury was left free to indulge in the probabilities of one with such a criminal record committing the crime charged.
The failure of the trial judge to instruct the jury as requested was prejudicial error and a new trial must be granted. In 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1032(3), the governing principle is thus stated:
'For the reason that an accused person is not to be convicted of one crime by proof that he was guilty of another, it is the general rule, at least where the party requests such instruction, that when evidence of other crimes or offenses is admitted, it should be limited and guarded carefully by instructions to the jury, so that its operation and effect may be confined to the legitimate purpose for which it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Warren
...testimony of prior convictions was brought out by the defendant's attorney during direct examination of the defendant. State v. Smalls, 260 S.C. 44, 194 S.E.2d 188 (1973). In Smalls, the Court rejected the State's argument Smalls was not entitled to a limiting instruction since Smalls first......
-
State v. Johnson
...for the particular purpose for which it is offered. See State v. Steadman, 216 S.C. 579, 59 S.E.2d 168 (1950); State v. Smalls, 260 S.C. 44, 194 S.E.2d 188 (1973); 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law, § 1032(3). The reasoning behind this rule is to protect against a jury convicting a defendant just beca......
-
Waldrop v. State
...among the jurisdictions as to the proper treatment of a defendant's direct testimony admitting prior convictions. In State v. Smalls, 260 S.C. 44, 194 S.E.2d 188 (1973), upon direct examination, defense counsel elicited from the defendant the fact that he previously had been convicted of th......
-
Waldrop v. State, No. CR-07-0148 (Ala. Crim. App. 3/5/2010)
...among the jurisdictions as to the proper treatment of a defendant's direct testimony admitting prior convictions. In State v. Smalls, 260 S.C. 44, 194 S.E.2d 188 (1973), upon direct examination, defense counsel elicited from the defendant the fact that he previously had been convicted of th......