State v. White, 16001.

• Citation: 44 S.E.2d 741
• Decision Date: 30 October 1947
• Docket Number: No. 16001.,16001.
• Parties: STATE. v. WHITE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

44 S.E.2d 741

STATE.
v.
WHITE.

No. 16001.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Oct. 30, 1947.

[44 S.E.2d 741]

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Richland County; E. H. Henderson, Judge.

Harry D. White was convicted of buying and receiving 16 cases of assorted whisky knowing them to have been stolen, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

C. T. Graydon and Kenneth R. Kreps, both of Columbia, for appellant.

T. Pou Taylor, Sol., of Columbia, for respondent.

BAKER, Chief Justice.

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,

[44 S.E.2d 742]

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...