State v. Teal, 16892
| Decision Date | 15 July 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 16892,16892 |
| Citation | 82 S.E.2d 787,225 S.C. 472 |
| Parties | STATE v. TEAL. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
John B. Baltzegar, Jr., Orangeburg, for appellant.
Robert L. Kilgo, Sol., Darlington, for respondent.
The appellant, James Teal, was convicted at the October Term of General Sessions Court for Marlboro County of the crimes of Breaking and Entering and Grand Larceny for which he was sentenced to serve three years on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.
Mr. Wilbur Hodges, owner of the building which had been entered, testified that the building was locked with a padlock as of Sunday, January 28, 1951; that on Wednesday morning, January 31, he noticed that the lock had been cut apparently with bolt cutters and had fallen in pieces to the cement floor on the outside of the door. Upon entering the building, he discovered that a freezer of the value of more than $400 was missing, marks being left on the floor indicating it had been dragged to the door.
Appellant in a written statement, confessed to members of the State Constabulary, known as South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, that he and one Elliott Dean were the parties who removed the 'coldspot Deep Freeze' from the fruit store and carried it to his house but as it was too large they were unable to get it through the door. He then carried it to the home of his brother-in-law, Otto Davis, who agreed to keep it for him. Later he met one Ernest Smith at the Davis home and turned the freezer over to him. Portions of this testimony were corroborated by both Davis and Smith.
Appellant takes the position that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of either Breaking and Entering or Grand Larceny. It is useless to quote further from the testimony to show that if the testimony heretofore referred to was believed by the jury, which it had a right to do, it was sufficient to require submission of the case to the jury. Appellant takes the position, however, that at the time his alleged confession was admitted into evidence, sufficient proof of the corpus delicti, aliunde, the confession, had not been shown. 'The 'corpus delicti' in larceny consists of two elements--the loss of the property by the owner and the loss by a felonious taking.' State v. Roof, 196 S.C. 204, 12 S.E.2d 705; and generally speaking, the term 'corpus delicti' means, when applied to any particular offense, that the specific crime has actually been committed, State v. Gillis, 73 S.C. 318, 53 S.E. 487, 5 L.R.A.,N.S., 571; 14 Am.Jur. 758. The rule is well established that the conviction cannot be had on the extrajudicial confessions of the defendant unless corroborated by proof aliunde of the corpus delicti. State v. Blocker, 205 S.C. 303, 31 S.E.2d 908.
In the instant case it was testified that the door was fastened with a lock which had been cut and the pieces had fallen to the floor, the place entered and the freezer removed; other cabinets in the place contained ice cream which had been left open so recently that they showed very little sign of defrosting and the ice cream was still frozen hard; that on previous occasions the doors to these cabinets had been left ajar...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Easley v. Portman
...When applied to any particular offense, the term corpus delicti means the specific crime has actually been committed. State v. Teal, 225 S.C. 472, 82 S.E.2d 787 (1954). The efficacy of the doctrine of corpus delicti is explicated in State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 381, 468 S.E.2d 656 (1996). Th......
-
State v. Osborne
...Law Dictionary 73 (6th ed.1990). 4. "The body of a crime." Black's Law Dictionary 344 (6th ed.1990). See also State v. Teal, 225 S.C. 472, 474, 82 S.E.2d 787, 788 (1954) ("[G]enerally speaking, the term "corpus delicti" means, when applied to any particular offense, that the specific crime ......
-
Copeland v. Manning, 17544
...indictments here were in accord with the established practice in this State. State v. Miller, 225 S.C. 21, 80 S.E.2d 354; State v. Teal, 225 S.C. 472, 82 S.E.2d 787. Having concluded that appellant was subject to punishment for both offenses, we now turn to the sentence of 12 years on each ......
-
State v. Townsend
...Moreover, a conviction based on a confession cannot stand unless corroborated by proof aliunde of the corpus delicti. State v. Teal, 225 S.C. 472, 82 S.E.2d 787 (1954). In other words, the state must produce proof of the corpus delicti aside from the defendant's extra-judicial confession. B......