State v. Thomas, No. 15354.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | FISHBURNE, Justice |
| Citation | 18 S.E.2d 369,198 S.C. 519 |
| Parties | STATE . v. THOMAS. |
| Docket Number | No. 15354. |
| Decision Date | 13 January 1942 |
18 S.E.2d 369
198 S.C. 519
STATE .
v.
THOMAS.
No. 15354.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jan. 13, 1942.
[18 S.E.2d 369]
Appeal from General Sessions Court, of Georgetown County; J. Strom Thurmond, Judge.
George Thomas was convicted of rape, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Joseph Murray, of Columbia, for appellant.
J. Reuben Long, Sol., of Conway, for respondent.
FISHBURNE, Justice.
The defendant, George Thomas, was convicted of rape by a jury in the Court of General Sessions for Georgetown County. Judgment of death by electrocution was pro nounced upon him by the court, and from that judgment he prosecutes this appeal.
The crime was committed about ten o'clock on the night of December 14, 1940, in the city of Georgetown. Appellant is a negro man, and the prosecutrix is a young married white woman. He was arrested on the day after the commission of the alleged offense and taken by the sheriff of Georgetown County to the State Penitentiary in Columbia for safe-keeping.
The first question presented is the action of the trial court in overruling the defendant's motion for a change of venue, which motion is based upon the verified petition of the appellant, with a supporting affidavit by Mr. Joseph Murray, his attorney, in which it is set forth that the defendant could not obtain a fair and impartial trial in Georgetown County.
Defendant alleges that on the day after he was taken to Columbia a mob of approximately 300 citizens of Georgetown County gathered at the county jail and demanded of the sheriff that he give them a key to the jail so that it could be searched for the defendant; that the whole county of Georgetown is permeated with a spirit of hostility against the defendant; that the charge against him has been frequently and publicly discussed by the citizens throughout the county, who have become so fixed in their belief that the defendant is guilty of the crime he stands charged with that he cannot obtain a trial before a fair and impartial jury in Georgetown County.
Mr. Murray, the defendant's attorney, is a native of South Carolina, and resides in Columbia, where he maintains his law office. His affidavit shows that he went to the city of Georgetown on January 26, 1941, which was the day before the trial of the defendant was begun, for the purpose of representing him; that he talked with a number of citizens of the county with reference to the defendant's case, and every one with whom he talked expressed the belief that the defendant could not obtain a fair and impartial trial in Georgetown County; that on the night before the trial he was told by a State highway patrolman in Georgetown that threats had been made against the life of deponent by reason of the fact that he represented the defendant. Mr. Murray stated in his affidavit that he was apprehensive that his life would be taken, or that he would suffer serious bodily harm after the trial of the case should he
[18 S.E.2d 370]be forced to defend the defendant in Georgetown County; and that he felt satisfied that George Thomas, the appellant, could not obtain a fair and impartial trial in the county where the alleged crime was committed.
Mr. Murray further stated in his affidavit that although he had endeavored to obtain the assistance of local counsel in Georgetown County to aid him in the selection of a jury, and to join with him in making an affidavit to the effect that the defendant could not obtain a fair trial in Georgetown County, he had failed to do so; that the local attorney he interviewed refused to be associated in the case on account of the feeling and the public sentiment against the defendant; and that such attorney advised Mr. Murray that a fair and impartial trial could not be had in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Britt, No. 17598
...to have been committed, his refusal to change the venue will be sustained, except in the case of an abuse of discretion. State v. Thomas, 198 S.C. 519, 18 S.E.2d It appears from the record that Harry Boyd Ray was employed as a Highway Patrolman. He was born in Barnwell County and resided wi......
-
State v. Moorer, No. 18016
...his judgment refusing to shange the venue, unless it is made to appear that there has been an abuse of discretion. * * *' State v. Thomas, 198 S.C. 519, 18 S.E.2d The Appellant contends that the trial Judge erred by refusing the motion before ascertaining whether or not grounds existed whic......
-
State v. Cannon, No. 18575
...his judgment refusing to change the venue, unless it § made to appear that there has been an abuse of discretion.' State v. Thomas, 198 S.C. 519, 18 S.E.2d While we deplore and condemn the publication by news media, in advance of a criminal trial, of evidentiary facts, which are clearly ina......
-
State v. Whitener, No. 16960
...in Richland County. Such a motion is addressed to the court's discretion. State v. Woods, 189 S.C. 281, 1 S.E.2d 190; State v. Thomas, 198 S.C. 519, 18 S.E.2d 369; State v. Gantt, 223 S.C. 431, 76 S.E.2d 674. Careful consideration of the affidavits and newspaper clippings submitted in suppo......
-
State v. Britt, No. 17598
...to have been committed, his refusal to change the venue will be sustained, except in the case of an abuse of discretion. State v. Thomas, 198 S.C. 519, 18 S.E.2d It appears from the record that Harry Boyd Ray was employed as a Highway Patrolman. He was born in Barnwell County and resided wi......
-
State v. Moorer, No. 18016
...his judgment refusing to shange the venue, unless it is made to appear that there has been an abuse of discretion. * * *' State v. Thomas, 198 S.C. 519, 18 S.E.2d The Appellant contends that the trial Judge erred by refusing the motion before ascertaining whether or not grounds existed whic......
-
State v. Cannon, No. 18575
...his judgment refusing to change the venue, unless it § made to appear that there has been an abuse of discretion.' State v. Thomas, 198 S.C. 519, 18 S.E.2d While we deplore and condemn the publication by news media, in advance of a criminal trial, of evidentiary facts, which are clearly ina......
-
State v. Whitener, No. 16960
...in Richland County. Such a motion is addressed to the court's discretion. State v. Woods, 189 S.C. 281, 1 S.E.2d 190; State v. Thomas, 198 S.C. 519, 18 S.E.2d 369; State v. Gantt, 223 S.C. 431, 76 S.E.2d 674. Careful consideration of the affidavits and newspaper clippings submitted in suppo......