State v. White
| Decision Date | 30 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | 16001. |
| Citation | 44 S.E.2d 741,211 S.C. 276 |
| Parties | STATE v. WHITE. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
C T. Graydon and Kenneth R. Kreps, both of Columbia, for appellant.
T Pou Taylor, Sol., of Columbia, for respondent.
At the January, 1947, term of the Court of General Sessions for Richland County, the appellant was tried convicted and sentenced upon an indictment charging that he did buy and receive sixteen cases of assorted whiskey knowing the same to have been stolen. From such conviction and sentence, this appeal is taken.
The issues raised by the appeal make it unnecessary for us to discuss in detail the facts of the case. The testimony is sufficing that the property here involved, was stolen, and bought and received by the appellant.
The exception upon which the appellant chiefly relies relates to the charge of the trial Judge as to what is sufficient in law to constitute 'knowing' that the property is stolen at the time it is purchased or received, the indictment having been brought under Section 1161 of the Code of 1942 reading in part as follows:
'In all cases whatever, where any goods or chattels, or other property of which larceny may be committed, shall have been feloniously taken or stolen by any person or persons, every person who shall buy or receive any such goods or chattels or other property, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall be held and deemed guilty of, and may be persecuted for, a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished * * *.'
Charging on this phase of the case the trial Judge instructed the jury:
'The next element in this offense which is charged in the indictment, is that the defendant must have known that the goods had been stolen at the moment the property was received by him, if he received it. Now, Gentlemen, what is meant by the word 'know'? The word 'know' does not mean that the defendant must have been present at the time the property may have been stolen, and have seen the thief with his own eyes. The word 'know' does not mean that. Facts sufficient to put a reasonably prudent man on inquiry are not sufficient. However, actual and positive knowledge--actual knowledge, such as eyesight--that the goods have been stolen is not required. The law does not require that. In order to establish the offense of receiving stolen property, knowing the same to have been stolen, a belief on the part of the defendant that the goods have been stolen is sufficient. Therefore, you gentlemen inquire from the testimony and decide, as a matter of fact, this question: Did or did not the defendant, White, believe at the time, if you find that he received the goods, did he believe at that time that they had previously been stolen?
'There is another element necessary, and that is fraudulent intent--that the defendant, if he received the goods, if they had been stolen, did he act with a criminal intent; with a fraudulent intent. If you gentlemen find, from the testimony, that the goods had not been stolen, turn the defendant loose. If you find, from the testimony, that the defendant did not receive them, turn him loose. If you find that the defendant did not know or believe the goods to have been stolen, acquit him. If you find, from the testimony, that he did not act with a criminal or fraudulent intent, acquit him. On the contrary, if you gentlemen find, from the testimony in this case, that the whiskey had been stolen; if you further find that the defendant bought or received the whiskey or any part of it; if you further find that the defendant knew or believed the whiskey to have been stolen; and if you further find that he acted with a criminal or fraudulent intent, it is your duty to bring in a verdict of 'Guilty."
This charge is in accord with the well established law of this State. State v. Rountree, 80 S.C. 387, 61 S.E. 1072, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 833; State v. Simon 126 S.C. 437, 120 S.E. 230; State v. Atkins, 205 S.C. 450, 32 S.E.2d 372.
It may be preferable to use the words 'firm belief' as synonymous with 'knowledge,' but in this case we cannot conceive of the jury having been misled by the use of the word 'believe' in connection with 'knowing.' If counsel for the appellant desired the word 'believe' as used in the charge to be defined to the jury as restricting it to 'knowledge' or synonymous thereto, then such request should have been made at the conclusion of the charge when the trial Judge inquired if anything further was desired to be charged.
It is indeed seldom that direct or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Salisbury
...failure to give a circumstantial evidence charge was not error. State v. Moorer, 241 S.C. 487, 129 S.E.2d 330 (1963); State v. White, 211 S.C. 276, 44 S.E.2d 741 (1947). However, if requested, as in the present case, such a charge was not required where the State relied upon direct evidence......