State v. Switzer
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | JONES, J |
| Citation | 65 S. C. 187,43 S.E. 513 |
| Parties | STATE. v. SWITZER. |
| Decision Date | 09 February 1903 |
43 S.E. 513
65 S. C. 187
STATE.
v.
SWITZER.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Feb. 9, 1903.
CRIMINAL LAW—FORMER JEOPARDY. 1. An acquittal on an indictment charging an attempt to commit arson, under Cr. Code, § 143, in attempting to burn a storehouse within the curtilage, is a bar to an indictment un-
[43 S.E. 514]der the same section for attempting to burn the same storehouse, as the evidence necessary to support the second indictment would have been sufficient to support a legal conviction on the first.
Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Greenville county; Gary, Judge.
Indictment against Morris Switzer. Prom an order sustaining the plea of former jeopardy, the state appeals on the following exceptions: "Please take notice that, pursuant to notice duly served, the state appeals from the judgment of the court of general sessions made in above ease at the summer term on the following grounds: (1) Because the judge erred in sustaining the foregoing plea of autrefois acquit made by the defendant to the foregoing indictment. (2) Because his honor erred in holding that the offense charged in this indictment was the same charged in the case of State v. Morris Switzer, in which the court at the spring term, 1902, ordered a verdict of not guilty." Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal because the exceptions pointed out no specific error of law. Affirmed.
Mr. Boggs, for the State.
B. M. Shuman and M. F. Ansel, for appellee.
JONES, J. In this case the state appeals from an order sustaining defendant's pleas of former acquittal and once in jeopardy. It appears that the defendant was acquitted on trial under a former indictment, charging "that the said Morris Switzer on the 16th day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and one, with force and arms, at Greenville Courthouse, in the county and state aforesaid, did feloniously, willfully, and maliciously attempt to set fire to the storehouse, storeroom, and building of the estate of one H. A. Cauble, deceased, held in trust by one R. E. Bowen, there situate, the same being within the curtilage or common inclosure of a room wherein persons habitually slept, whereby such sleeping apartment was endangered, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, against the peace and dignity of the same state aforesaid."
The second indictment, to which the pleas at bar were directed, charged as follows: "That Morris Switzer, late of the county and state aforesaid, on the 16th day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and one, with force and arms, at Greenville Courthouse, in the county and state aforesaid, did feloniously and maliciously attempt to set fire to the storehouse of M. H. Finlay and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Steadman, No. 16339
...the requisite ingredients of two distinct offenses, the defendant may be severally indicted and punished for each. State v. Switzer, 65 S.C. 187, 43 S.E. 513; State v. Taylor, 2 Bailey 49; State v. Thurston, 2 McMul. 382. The test generally applied is whether the evidence necessary to suppo......
-
State v. Hollman, No. 17409
...offense. The issue in the case at bar warrants reference to some of these decisions in this and other jurisdictions. In State v. Switzer, 65 S.C. 187, 43 S.E. 513, we held that acquittal under an indictment charging attempted arson of a storehouse within the curtilage barred subsequent indi......
-
State v. Greuling, No. 19356
...the occasion to consider its applicability to the charges of conspiracy and accessory before the fact. As long ago as State v. Switzer, 65 S.C. 187, 43 S.E. 513, this Court recognized that such rule, while generally useful and adequate, was not an infallible one. Research indicates that in ......
-
State v. Miller, No. 16836
...State ex rel. Burton v. Williams, 11 S.C. 288; State v. Taylor, supra; State v. Thurston, 27 S.C.L. 382, 2 McMul. 382; State v. Switzer, 65 S.C. 187, 43 S.E. 513; State v. Van Burden, 86 S.C. 297, 68 S.E. 568; State v. Rodgers, 100 S.C. 77, 84 S.E. 304; State v. Jenkins, 20 S.C. 351; State ......
-
State v. Steadman, No. 16339
...the requisite ingredients of two distinct offenses, the defendant may be severally indicted and punished for each. State v. Switzer, 65 S.C. 187, 43 S.E. 513; State v. Taylor, 2 Bailey 49; State v. Thurston, 2 McMul. 382. The test generally applied is whether the evidence necessary to suppo......
-
State v. Hollman, No. 17409
...offense. The issue in the case at bar warrants reference to some of these decisions in this and other jurisdictions. In State v. Switzer, 65 S.C. 187, 43 S.E. 513, we held that acquittal under an indictment charging attempted arson of a storehouse within the curtilage barred subsequent indi......
-
State v. Greuling, No. 19356
...the occasion to consider its applicability to the charges of conspiracy and accessory before the fact. As long ago as State v. Switzer, 65 S.C. 187, 43 S.E. 513, this Court recognized that such rule, while generally useful and adequate, was not an infallible one. Research indicates that in ......
-
State v. Miller, No. 16836
...State ex rel. Burton v. Williams, 11 S.C. 288; State v. Taylor, supra; State v. Thurston, 27 S.C.L. 382, 2 McMul. 382; State v. Switzer, 65 S.C. 187, 43 S.E. 513; State v. Van Burden, 86 S.C. 297, 68 S.E. 568; State v. Rodgers, 100 S.C. 77, 84 S.E. 304; State v. Jenkins, 20 S.C. 351; State ......