State v. Villepigue
| Decision Date | 05 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | 11412. |
| Citation | 121 S.E. 258,127 S.C. 392 |
| Parties | STATE v. VILLEPIGUE. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Kershaw County; J. W De Vore, Judge.
K. S Villepigue was convicted of violating the prohibition law and he appeals. Affirmed.
I. C. Hough, of Camden, and Cole L. Blease, of Columbia, for appellant.
A. F. Spigner, Sol., of Columbia, and Mendel L. Smith, of Camden, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year. From the judgment pronounced, he appeals upon two exceptions.
The first assigns error in the refusal of the presiding judge to grant the defendant's motion for a directed verdict based upon the ground that the evidence was "insufficient upon which to convict." Waiving the objection that the exception is too general for consideration and applying the well-settled rule that the refusal of such a motion is not erroneous as a matter of law if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to establish the guilt of the accused, we are constrained to overrule the exception. It is for the judge to determine the existence of such evidence; the effect or force thereof is for the jury. There was competent evidence, a review of which would serve no useful purpose, reasonably tending to establish the defendant's guilt in the case at bar, and we think the learned trial judge committed no error in submitting the case to the jury.
The second exception imputes error to the presiding judge in charging as follows:
It is suggested that this instruction was erroneous and prejudicial in view of the fact that the judge had refused to direct a verdict and had thus himself passed upon the sufficiency of the facts to convict. The objection is hypercritical. If submission of a case to a jury after refusing a party's motion to direct a verdict may soundly be interpreted as an intimation of an opinion by the trial judge that the jury's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Epes
... ... 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.' ... It ... must also be kept in mind that on an appeal from the refusal ... of the court to direct a verdict, the evidence and the ... inferences which may reasonably be drawn therefrom, must ... ...
-
State v. Smith
... ... 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. Brown, 205 ... S.C. 514, 32 S.E.2d 825; 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 ... [55 S.E.2d 344.] ... On ... appeal from the refusal of the Court to direct a verdict, the ... evidence and the inferences which may be reasonably drawn ... therefrom, must be viewed in ... ...
-
State v. Brown
... ... 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 ... ...