State v. Watson

• Decision Date: 01 March 1876
• Citation: 7 S.C. 63
• Parties: STATE v. WATSON.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

7 S.C. 63

STATE

v.WATSON.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Mar. 1, 1876.

Evidence on the part of the State to contradict testimony given by the prisoner to prove an alibi is not cumulative because it tends indirectly to strengthen the evidence in chief to fix the offense on the prisoner.

Where the evidence to sustain an indictment for larceny was that the money, the subject of the larceny, was snatched by the prisoner from the prosecutor's hands and made use of by him, and there was other evidence tending to show a felonious intent: Held, That it was not error to refuse to charge that the evidence proved only a trespass, and that if any offense was proved it was robbery and not larceny; nor that it was error to charge that if the jury believed the money was taken by surprise and converted by the prisoner to his own use it was larceny.

Where the defense is an alibi, it is error to charge that there must be no halting, but the defense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

BEFORE COOKE, J., AT GREENVILLE, TERM, 1875.

Indictment against Ed. Watson, alias John F. McCord, for grand larceny.

The case stated in the brief for this Court is as follows:

This was an indictment for grand larceny. On his arraignment, the defendant pleaded not guilty.

The Solicitor introduced evidence to the effect that some time in January, 1875, the defendant met one James Downs in the city of Greenville, and asked him if he did not wish to buy some whiskey. That Downs replied that he would take one gallon at one dollar and a half, and then went off to sell some cotton which he had brought to market. That soon after, the defendant came to him again and told him where the whiskey was, and the two started together for the place designated. That on the way they met a colored man and saw him drop something from his pocket. Defendant picked it up; the colored man came back and defendant said to him: “You have lost something, have you not?” The colored man replied: “Yes, I have lost a little trick, and there was a ribbon in it.” Defendant said that there was no ribbon in it, and the colored man offered to bet fifty dollars on it. Defendant wanted Downs to bet, and he would not. Defendant then said: “Pay me for the whiskey, it is close by.” Downs took out his money, and defendant snatched it all from him except a few small bills, and proceeded to bet with the colored man. Downs insisted that he should not do it, but he persisted and lost it. Defendant then told Downs that he would pay him his money back if he would walk back to the store, where he could borrow the money. They went to a store; but defendant failed to borrow the money and proposed to give his note for it. In pursuance of this proposition, he wrote on a piece of paper what purported to be a note and gave it to Downs; it was not signed.

The defendant introduced a number of witnesses to prove that he was not in Greenville at the time of the occurrence, which was fixed, but that the witnesses had seen him in Newberry on that day.

In reply, the Solicitor introduced a witness to prove that he had seen the parties together in the store on the evening in question and had seen the writing.

The defendant's attorney objected to this evidence as cumulative and not in reply. The Court overruled the objection, to which ruling the defendant's attorney excepted.

At the close of the evidence for the State, the defendant's counsel requested the Court to charge: 1. That the evidence proved only a trespass; and, 2. That if any offense was proved, it was robbery and not larceny. The request was denied, and His Honor charged that if the jury believed the money was obtained by surprise and defendant converted it to his own use, it was larceny. The defendant excepted to the rulings.

His Honor also charged the jury that where the defense is an alibi, there must be no halting, but that the defense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. To this portion of his charge the defendant's attorney excepted.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty.

The defendant appealed on the following grounds:

1. Because the offense proven was nothing more than a trespass.

2. Because, if any criminal intent was shown, the offense was robbery and not grand larceny.

3. Because it is respectfully submitted that His Honor the presiding Judge erred in admitting cumulative evidence on the part of the State in reply.

4. Because His Honor the presiding Judge charged the jury that where the defense is an alibi, there must be no halting, but that the defense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which, it is respectfully submitted, was error.

5. Because the verdict was otherwise contrary to the law and the evidence.

Jones, Jones & Mower, Earle & Wells, for appellant:

I. The person who took the money did so in the presence of the owner, and it was not taken secretly. There is nothing to indicate that it was obtained with a felonious intent. It is the intention which distinguishes larceny from trespass.-2...