State v. Williams, No. 17710

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtOXNER; STUKES
Citation116 S.E.2d 858,237 S.C. 252
PartiesSTATE, Respondent, v. Claude WILLIAMS, Appellant.
Decision Date07 November 1960
Docket NumberNo. 17710

Page 858

116 S.E.2d 858
237 S.C. 252
STATE, Respondent,
v.
Claude WILLIAMS, Appellant.
No. 17710.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Nov. 7, 1960.

Page 859

[237 S.C. 254] D. M. McEachin, Florence, for appellant.

Richard G. Dusenbury, Sol., Florence, for respondent.

OXNER, Justice.

Appellant, a Negro, was charged in one indictment with robbery, grand larceny and assault with a deadly weapon, and in another indictment with possessing, transporting and rescuing contraband liquor from the possession of a peace officer. With his consent, the two cases were tried together. During the course of the trial the Court directed a verdict of not guilty upon the count charging rescuing liquor from an officer and later the solicitor nol prossed the other liquor charges. The case was submitted to the jury only upon the indictment first mentioned. The jury returned a verdict of [237 S.C. 255] guilty of larceny and assault of a high and aggravated nature. A motion for a new trial was denied and appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six years on each offense, the sentences to run concurrently.

We shall first determine whether the Court below erred in refusing a motion for a directed verdict on the assault charge upon the ground that the undisputed evidence showed that the alleged assault was made while resisting an attempted unlawful arrest.

During the late afternoon of October 18, 1958, a highway patrolman stopped a Chevrolet automobile driven by appellant's brother, Daniel Williams, in a rural section of Florence County. Just before the car stopped, the patrolman noticed appellant, Claude Williams, who was sitting on the front seat with his brother, bend over 'like he was putting something under the sent.' The patrol car was stopped about six or eight feet behind the Williams car. Daniel got out and the patrolman asked to see his license. After inspecting same, he asked Daniel who was with him. Daniel replied that it was his brother. The patrolman, who had no warrant, then went around the right side of the Williams car and asked appellant to 'step back out of the car.' When appellant did so, the patrolman says he saw a jar of unstamped liquor 'sticking out from under the front seat.' He removed this jar and another jar of liquor found under the front seat, placed them on the left side of his car, and asked Daniel and appellant to stand between the two cars. He then got in his car and radioed a deputy sheriff. While he did so, Daniel left the place where he was asked to stand and walked toward the Williams car. As the patrolman brought Daniel back, appellant proceeded up the road on the shoulder. The patrolman overtook him

Page 860

and placed his hand on his shoulder. Appellant said he was not going back and jerked loose. When he had done so several times, the patrolman says he drew his gun and asked Daniel to try to get his brother not to resist. After some conversation, appellant quieted down and was brought back between the two cars and the patrolman [237 S.C. 256] replaced his gun in the holster. He testified that when he got out of his car after again using the radio, appellant suddenly caught him by the arm and after a struggle took his pistol from the holster. Appellant then went down the road approximately 30 or 40 yards and stopped. Daniel picked up the two jars of liquor, carred them to his brother, and returned to his automobile where after some difficulty, he was handcuffed by the patrolman. Appellant, after getting the liquor from Daniel, ran across the field and disappeared.

Appellant testified that he knew nothing about liquor being in the car until told by his brother after seeing the patrolman behind them. He denied that one of the fruit jars was sticking out from under the front seat, stating that it was not visible. He testified that the patrolman threatened to shoot him and he then grabbed the pistol from the patrolman's hand. Appellant said after the had gone down the road a distance of about 300 yards, he threw the pistol in a field of 'pea forage'. It was never found. The liquor was found the next morning. Daniel was later indicted and pleaded guilty to transporting it.

Under the terms of Section 46-854 of the 1952 Code, highway patrolmen are required to enforce the laws of this State relative to highway traffic and motor vehicles and are given the same authority and power possessed by a deputy sheriff to enforce the criminal laws of this State. Accordingly, it has been held that a highway patrolman is empowered to arrest without a warrant any person who commits a misdemeanor in his presence. Yongue v. National Surety Corporation, 190 S.C. 421, 3 S.E.2d 198. With certain exceptions not material here, a person is required to have a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle on the highways of this State, Section 46-142, Code Supplement. Such license must be kept in his immediate possession while driving and displayed upon demand of any police officer. Section 46-162, Code Supplement. The right of a patrolman to stop a car for the purpose of requiring the driver to exhibit his license has never been questioned. Of [237 S.C. 257] course, such right must be exercised 'in good faith and not as a pretext or subterfuge for an inspection of or a prying into the contents of an automobile or any other possession of a citizen.' Robertson v. State, 184 Tenn. 277, 198 S.W.2d 633, 635.

There is no proof here that the patrolman did not act in good faith in stopping the automobile. He had a right to stop the car for the purpose of determining whether the driver had a license. Appellant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • State v. Brannon, No. 4428.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 18 Julio 2008
    ...306 S.C. 268, 270, 411 S.E.2d 428, 429 (1991). However, there is a paucity of law defining when an arrest begins. In State v. Williams, 237 S.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 858 (1960), Williams was convicted of robbery, grand larceny and assault with a deadly weapon. While detained by a highway patrol ......
  • State v. Gervasio
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 19 Julio 1983
    ...A.2d 1 (1971); State v. Allen, 282 N.C. 503, 194 S.E.2d 9 (1973); State v. Maloney, 109 R.I. 166, 283 A.2d 34 (1971); State v. Williams, 237 S.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 858 (1960); Murphy v. State, 194 Tenn. 698, 254 S.W.2d 979 (1953); Fatemi v. State, 558 S.W.2d 463 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Faulkner v.......
  • People v. Nunn, Cr. 13661
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 14 Agosto 1968
    ...States v. Berry, 369 F.2d 386 (3rd Cir. 1966); Mincy v. District of Columbia, 218 A.2d 507 (D.C.C.A. 1966); State v. Williams (1960) 237 S.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 858.) The random stopping of motorists is upheld as reasonable because the inconvenience suffered by the motorist is relatively sligh......
  • State v. Condrey, No. 3471.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 1 Abril 2002
    ...v. Brown, 274 S.C. 48, 260 S.E.2d 719 (1979). To make out the offense of larceny, there must be a felonious purpose. State v. Williams, 237 S.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 858 (1960). The taking must be done animo furandi—with a view of depriving the true owner of his property and converting it to the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • State v. Brannon, No. 4428.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 18 Julio 2008
    ...306 S.C. 268, 270, 411 S.E.2d 428, 429 (1991). However, there is a paucity of law defining when an arrest begins. In State v. Williams, 237 S.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 858 (1960), Williams was convicted of robbery, grand larceny and assault with a deadly weapon. While detained by a highway patrol ......
  • State v. Gervasio
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 19 Julio 1983
    ...A.2d 1 (1971); State v. Allen, 282 N.C. 503, 194 S.E.2d 9 (1973); State v. Maloney, 109 R.I. 166, 283 A.2d 34 (1971); State v. Williams, 237 S.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 858 (1960); Murphy v. State, 194 Tenn. 698, 254 S.W.2d 979 (1953); Fatemi v. State, 558 S.W.2d 463 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Faulkner v.......
  • People v. Nunn, Cr. 13661
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 14 Agosto 1968
    ...States v. Berry, 369 F.2d 386 (3rd Cir. 1966); Mincy v. District of Columbia, 218 A.2d 507 (D.C.C.A. 1966); State v. Williams (1960) 237 S.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 858.) The random stopping of motorists is upheld as reasonable because the inconvenience suffered by the motorist is relatively sligh......
  • State v. Condrey, No. 3471.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 1 Abril 2002
    ...v. Brown, 274 S.C. 48, 260 S.E.2d 719 (1979). To make out the offense of larceny, there must be a felonious purpose. State v. Williams, 237 S.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 858 (1960). The taking must be done animo furandi—with a view of depriving the true owner of his property and converting it to the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT