State v. Thomas, 16691

• Decision Date: 10 December 1952
• Docket Number: No. 16691,16691
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. THOMAS et al.

Page 722

73 S.E.2d 722

222 S.C. 484

STATE v. THOMAS et al.

No. 16691.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Dec. 10, 1952.

Thompson & Poteat, Georgetown, for appellant.

Solicitor J. Reuben Long, Conway, for respondent.

BAKER, Chief Justice.

The defendant-appellant, Margaret Gertrude Vernon, and her co-defendant, Herbert Thomas, both of the white race, were tried at the November term, 1951, of the Court of General Sessions in and for Georgetown County, on an indictment charging them with the murder of Freddie Mitchell, a Negro man, on the 18th day of August, 1951. The jury found both of the defendants guilty of manslaughter, whereupon, the Presiding Judge sentenced the defendant-appellant, Margaret Gertrude Vernon, to be confined at hard labor for a period of 20 years in the County Jail of Georgetown County or for a like period in the State Penitentiary; and the defendant Herbert Thomas to be confined at hard labor for a period of 20 years upon the Public Works of Georgetown County or for a like period in the State Penitentiary.

While a joint notice of appeal to this Court was served, and joint exceptions were timely served, the only printed brief filed was in behalf of Margaret Gertrude Vernon, and upon oral argument the Court was informed and advised that the defendant, Herbert Thomas, had abandoned his appeal. Therefore, when hereinafter we refer to the appellant, such reference will relate solely to the defendant Vernon.

At the conclusion of the testimony in behalf of the State, and again at the conclusion of all of the testimony in the case, appellant moved for a direction of verdict of not guilty on the ground that 'the State has failed to prove the corpus delicti, without excluding confessions and admissions. The State has proved that there has been a death, the death of a Negro, identified as one Freddie Mitchell, but they failed to prove by anything other than confessions and admissions that there was a felonious death to sustain any action for either murder or manslaughter.' Both motions were refused, and this appeal followed.

The sole question in this appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence, aliunde the extrajudicial confessions, to prove the corpus delicti.

We quote from State v. Thomas, 159 S.C. 76, 156 S.E. 169, 170:

"The corpus delicti, in a case of murder, consists of two elements,--the death of a human being, and the criminal act of another in causing that death' (State v. Martin, 47 S.C. 67, 25 S.E. 113, 115); and, in order to authorize a conviction, the state must prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, which may be done by circumstantial evidence (State v. Gillis, 73 S.C. 318, 53 S.E. 487, 5 L.R.A.,N.S., 571, 114 Am.St.Rep. 95, 6 Ann.Cas. 993).'

As hereinabove stated, and copy-modeling from the opinion in State v. Blocker, 205 S.C. 303, 31 S.E.2d 908, the sole question raised on this appeal is whether there was any evidence apart from the confessions, reasonably tending to establish the corpus delicti so as to warrant the admission in evidence of the alleged confessions. The corpus delicti includes not only the fact of the death of a person, but it must also appear that such person's death was the result of the criminal act of another person and is not the result of a natural or accidental cause. This rule with regard to the proof of the corpus delicti, apart from the mere confession of the accused, proceeds upon the theory that the general fact, without which there could be no guilt in the accused or in anyone else, must be established before anyone could be convicted of the alleged criminal act which caused it; for otherwise, the accused might be convicted when there was no criminal agency involved.

We quote from State v. Brown, 205 S.C. 514, 520, 32 S.E.2d 825, 827:

'The general rule is that, if there be any evidence tending to prove the fact in issue, or which reasonably conduces to its conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction, and not merely such as raises a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it, the case should be submitted to the jury. State v. Roddey, 126 S.C. 499, 120 S.E. 359; State v. Villepigue, 127 S.C. 392, 121 S.E. 258; State v. Walker, 138 S.C. 293, 136 S.E. 215.

'The office and function of the Court when considering a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, is, not to pass upon the weight of the evidence, but to determine its sufficiency to support the verdict. Where there is any evidence, however slight, on which the jury may justifiably find the existence or the non-existence of material facts in issue, or if the evidence is of such character that different conclusions as to such facts reasonably may be drawn therefrom, the issues should be submitted to the jury. State v. Prince, 165 S.C. 115, 162 S.E. 777; State v. Gellis, 158 S.C. 471, 155 S.E. 849; State v. Rush, 129 S.C. 43, 123 S.E. 765.'

We again quote, and from State v. Epes, 209 S.C. 246, 251, 39 S.E.2d 769, 770:

'In proving corpus delicti, the law demands the best proof which in the nature of the case is attainable. Direct and positive evidence is not essential. It is now well established that the elements constituting the corpus delicti in a homicide case--the death of the person whose life is alleged to have been taken feloniously, and the criminal agency of another in taking the life of such person--may be sufficiently proved by presumptive or circumstantial evidence, where that is the best evidence obtainable. State v. Thomas, 159 S.C. 76, 156 S.E. 169; State v. Gillis, 73 S.C. 318, 53 S.E. 487, 5 L.R.A.,N.S., 571, 114 Am.St.Rep. 95, 6 Ann.Cas. 993.'

It is admitted by the appellant that the first element of the corpus delicti, that is, the fact of the death of Freddie Mitchell, has been sufficiently proved by the State. It is, however, appellant's contention that the State has failed to legally or sufficiently prove the second element, that is that the death of said Mitchell was brought about through the criminal agency of another.

The last time Mitchell's wife saw the deceased was on Saturday, August 18, 1951, at about 12 o'clock. At between 12:30 and 1 o'clock that afternoon the deceased was at a fishing camp at Myrtle Grove, on White Creek, occupied by Herbert Thomas and the appellant, where they were living together as man and wife, although the appellant had a living husband, from whom she had not been divorced, and for this reason they had never entered into a marriage ceremony. At that time, Dempsey Thomas, the brother of Herbert Thomas, was also at this fishing camp, and the deceased had a one-half pint bottle of whiskey which was consumed by...