State v. Smith, No. 18271

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtTAYLOR
Citation245 S.C. 59,138 S.E.2d 705
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Willie Clarence SMITH, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 18271
Decision Date06 November 1964

Page 705

138 S.E.2d 705
245 S.C. 59
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Willie Clarence SMITH, Appellant.
No. 18271.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Nov. 6, 1964.

[245 S.C. 60] Clement L. McEachern, Greenville, for appellant.

Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., Grady L. Patterson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbia, James R. Mann, B. O. Thomason, Sols., Greenville, for respondent.

[245 S.C. 61] TAYLOR, Chief Justice.

Appellant was tried and convicted in the Court of General Sessions for Greenville County upon an indictment charging him with burglary and housebreaking. At the conclusion of the State's evidence, motion for a directed verdict was made and denied; however, after conviction of burglary, no motion was made for a new trial and Appellant was sentenced to 5 years in the State Penitentiary and 5 years probation. Appellant contends that the trial Judge erred in his charge to the jury, in overruling an objection to certain testimony, and in refusing his motion for a directed verdict as the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction.

Page 706

The record reveals that at the conclusion of his charge to the jury the trial Judge, in the absence of the jury, afforded counsel an opportunity to make any objection to the charge given or to request additional instructions. No objection or request was made. By failing to object or request additional instructions, Appellant waived any right that he may have had to a fuller charge. State v. Jamison, 221 S.C. 312, 70 S.E.2d 342; State v. Jones, 228 S.C. 484, 91 S.E.2d 1; State v. Hollman, 232 S.C. 489, 102 S.E.2d 873; State v. Jacobs, 238 S.C. 234, 119 S.E.2d 735. Examination of the charge to the jury, however, reveals that the trial Judge fully charged the law applicable to the offenses with which Appellant was charged.

[245 S.C. 62] Appellant objected to certain testimony relating to a statement allegedly made by him immediately after the crime was committed and was overruled. This he contends was error.

The general rule is that the admission of evidence is largely within the discretion of the trial Court and in order to constitute reversible error in the admission thereof, the accused must be prejudiced thereby; and the burden is upon him to satisfy this Court that there was prejudicial error. State v. Smith, 230 S.C. 164, 94 S.E.2d 886; State v. Bullock, 235 S.C. 356, 111 S.E.2d 657; State v. Hyder, 242 S.C. 372, 131 S.E.2d 96.

After the testimony complained of had been admitted in evidence over...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • State v. West, No. 12754
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 15 juillet 1969
    ...v. United States, 279 F.2d 740, cert den. 364 U.S. 850, 81 S.Ct. 96, 5 L.Ed.2d 74; 23 A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1145(3)a; State v. Smith, 245 S.C. 59, 138 S.E.2d 705. See State v. Spradley, 140 W.Va. 314, 84 S.E.2d 156. In connection with this matter, this Court stated in point one of the syl......
  • State v. Jackson, No. 20090
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 3 septembre 1975
    ...his rights. State v. Jordan, 258 S.C. 340, 188 S.E.2d 780 (1972); State v. Jenkins, 249 S.C. 570, 155 S.E.2d 624 (1967); State v. Smith, 245 S.C. 59, 138 S.E.2d 705 If we assume their admissibility is properly raised, no error was committed. The objection was made because the State did not ......
  • State v. Harvey, No. 18973
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 3 novembre 1969
    ...had been committed in the refusal of a motion for a mistrial, it was cured. State v. Motley, 251 S.C. 568, 164 S.E.2d 569; State v. Smith, 245 S.C. 59, 138 S.E.2d The next question is whether the trial judge erred in failing to declare Walter Powell, an officer of the South Carolina Law Enf......
  • State v. Motley, No. 18841
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 19 novembre 1968
    ...made. The objection was thereby lost and if any error had been committed in the admission of the testimony it was cured. State v. Smith, 245 S.C. 59, 138 S.E.2d Gene Lessmeister, a member of the Detective Division of the City of Florence Police Department, testified in behalf of the State a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • State v. West, No. 12754
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 15 juillet 1969
    ...v. United States, 279 F.2d 740, cert den. 364 U.S. 850, 81 S.Ct. 96, 5 L.Ed.2d 74; 23 A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1145(3)a; State v. Smith, 245 S.C. 59, 138 S.E.2d 705. See State v. Spradley, 140 W.Va. 314, 84 S.E.2d 156. In connection with this matter, this Court stated in point one of the syl......
  • State v. Jackson, No. 20090
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 3 septembre 1975
    ...his rights. State v. Jordan, 258 S.C. 340, 188 S.E.2d 780 (1972); State v. Jenkins, 249 S.C. 570, 155 S.E.2d 624 (1967); State v. Smith, 245 S.C. 59, 138 S.E.2d 705 If we assume their admissibility is properly raised, no error was committed. The objection was made because the State did not ......
  • State v. Harvey, No. 18973
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 3 novembre 1969
    ...had been committed in the refusal of a motion for a mistrial, it was cured. State v. Motley, 251 S.C. 568, 164 S.E.2d 569; State v. Smith, 245 S.C. 59, 138 S.E.2d The next question is whether the trial judge erred in failing to declare Walter Powell, an officer of the South Carolina Law Enf......
  • State v. Motley, No. 18841
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 19 novembre 1968
    ...made. The objection was thereby lost and if any error had been committed in the admission of the testimony it was cured. State v. Smith, 245 S.C. 59, 138 S.E.2d Gene Lessmeister, a member of the Detective Division of the City of Florence Police Department, testified in behalf of the State a......
  • 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