State v. Totherow, 19913
| Decision Date | 25 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 19913,19913 |
| Citation | 263 S.C. 275,210 S.E.2d 228 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Ricky McClain TOTHEROW, Appellant. |
Bobert M. Jones, Rock Hill, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Robert M. Ariail and Staff Atty. Wade S. Kolb, Jr., Columbia, and Sol. mike S. Jolly, Union, for respondent.
The defendant Totherow and two other juveniles were charged in the Family Court of York County with having unlawfully attempted to commit a larceny by stealing a battery from an automobile parked in the lot of Sullivan Junior High School, the location of which is not disclosed by the record. Totherow was found guilty by the judge and placed on probation. He now appeals asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. It is an elementary proposition that in considering whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction in a criminal case such has to be viewed in the light most favorable to the State. We accordingly review the evidence and state the facts in that light.
On November 8, 1973, a number of juveniles, including the defendant Totherow, were at the home of one Rocky Owens on Standard Street approximately one block from the Sullivan school. There was a car parked at the residence which belonged to Rocky Owens' mother. Some of the boys attempted to crank the car but were unsuccessful because the battery was dead and it had no gas. Three boys, including Totherow, left saying that they were going to get a battery, but came back some time later and said that they couldn't get one. One of the boys had a pair of pliers and there is also evidence that one of the boys had a pair of vice grips and that when the three boys departed they went down the railroad track in the direction of Sullivan school. The testimony is quite vague as to what time the boys departed in search of a battery, how long they were gone, or what time they returned except that it was before lunch.
A Mr. Jenkins testified for the State, he being connected with Sullivan school. His testimony was to the effect that a teacher and a student, inferentially at about 11:00 a.m. on November 8th, reported to him having seen three boys tampering with an automobile in the parking lot and that they gave him a description of the boys; that he called the police who came and that he saw a car in the parking lot on which the hood had been raised and a battery cable disconnected, but the battery not removed. Neither the teacher, nor the student who reported to Mr. Jenkins, was called as a witness and the record is silent as to the description of the boys reportedly seen about the car, silent as to whether Jenkins communicated such to the police and silent as to whether such fit any or all of the three boys charged.
Officer Henderson also testified for the State, he having conducted an investigation as a result of which the three boys were charged as above set forth. He apparently knew nothing of his own knowledge except that some damage was done to one post on the battery which the boys were charged with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ballenger
...267 S.C. at 316, 227 S.E.2d at 677, or where the evidence is sufficient only to raise a strong suspicion of guilt. State v. Totherow, 263 S.C. 275, 210 S.E.2d 228 (1974). However, a trial judge is not required to find that the evidence infers guilt to the exclusion of any other reasonable h......
- State v. Dozier, 19912
-
Simmons, In Interest of, 20984
...that there is any substantial evidence from which guilt of appellants may be fairly and logically deduced. See State v. Totherow, 263 S.C. 275, 210 S.E.2d 228 (1974). After a full consideration of appellants' remaining exceptions, we are convinced that a full written opinion would have no p......