State v. Woodard

Citation17 S.E. 135,38 S.C. 353
PartiesSTATE. v. WOODARD et al.
Decision Date23 February 1893
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

Indictment—Joinder of Offenses—Election— Misjoinder of Parties.

1. Several distinct offenses may be united by separate counts in the same indictment, and, where they do not grow out of the same subject-matter, the prosecuting officer must elect to what charge he will confine the trial.

2. It is not a misjoinder of parties to charge three defendants with burglary in one count of an indictment, and larceny in the second count, and to charge two of them with receiving stolen goods from the other in a third count.

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Chesterfield county; W. H. Wallace, Judge.

Sandy Woodard was convicted of grand larceny, and Wirt M. Wadell of receiving stolen goods, and they appeal. Affirmed.

E. J. Kennedy, for appellants.

J. M. Johnson, for the State.

POPE, J. The jury having found Sandy Woodard, alias J. A. Woodard, guilty of grand larceny, and Wirt M. Wadell guilty of receiving goods that were stolen by J. A. Woodard, knowing them to have been so stolen, his honor, Judge Wallace, as presiding judge, sentenced the former to hard labor in the penitentiary for three years, and the latter to two years' hard labor in the penitentiary. The defendants now appeal from the judgment upon the following grounds: "(1) Because his honor erred in not sustaining the motion of the defendants to quash the indictment on the grounds taken before him; (2) because his honor erred in holding that there was no misjoinder of offenses in this indictment; (3) because his honor erred in holding that there was no misjoinder of defendants in this indictment; (4) because his honor erred in holding that the several offenses charged in this indictment were properly joined; (5) because his honor erred In holding that Sandy Woodard, Frank Sellers, and Wirt M. Wadell, who were charged in the first and second counts with house breaking and grand larceny, were properly joined with Frank Sellers and Wirt M. Wadell, who were charged in a third count with buying and receiving stolen goods from Sandy Woodard, well knowing them to be stolen. "These five grounds of appeal resolve themselves into one or at most into two questions, —a misjoinder of offenses in the indictment; a misjoinder of persons in the same instrument. From the "case" It appears that on the 24th January, 1802, the house of Peter L. McIntyre was broken into and robbed of a quantity of specific personal property, including $105 of gold and silver coin and bank bills. The first count of the Indictment alleges burglary with intent to commit a larceny. The second count alleges that the defendants and one Frank Sellers did commit a grand larceny from the dwell-ing house of Peter L. Mclntyre. The third count alleges that the defendants Frank Sellers and Wirt M. Wadell bought and received the same articles of personal property set out in the second count from one Sandy Woodard, knowing that such property was stolen property. At the trial the solicitor entered a nolle prosequi as to Frank Sellers. No verdict was rendered as to the first count for burglary. The brief or "case" fails to contain the judge's charge, and we will assume, therefore, that such charge was unexceptionable.

The first count is for burglary, and the second count for grand larceny, both felonies, and the third count sets out a misdemeanor. Section 2526a, Gen. St. Therefore there is here a union by separate counts in the same indictment of three separate offenses. While the date of each offense is the same, and the owner of the property Injured the same, yet by the "case" itself it does not foUow that the offenses all grow out of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • State v. Bolyn
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 4, 1928
    ......See the. following decisions of this court: State v. Nelson, . 14 Rich. 169, 94 Am. Dec. 130; State v. Scott, 15. S.C. 434; State v. Sheppard, 54 S.C. 178, 32 S.E. 146; State v. Bouknight, 55 S.C. 353, 33 S.E. 451,. 74 Am. St. Rep. 751; State v. Woodard, 38 S.C. 353,. 17 S.E. 135; State v. Hutchings, 24 S.C. 142;. State v. Smith, 18 S.C. 149; State v. Sharpe, 132 S.C. 236, 128 S.E. 722; State v. Jones, 86 S.C. 17, 67 S.E. 160. . .          The. seventh exception imputes error to the presiding judge. "in admitting in ......
  • State v. Bolyn
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 4, 1928
    ......The same is therefore overruled. See I he following decisions of this court: State v. Nelson, 14 Rich. 109, 94 Am. Dec. 130; State v. Scott, 15 S. C. 434; State v. Sheppard, 54 S. C. 178, 32 S. E. 146; State v. Bouknight, 55 S. C. 353, 33 S. E. 451, 74 Am. St. Rep. 751; State v. Woodard, 3S S. C. 353, 17 S. E. 135; State v. Hutchings, 24 S. C. 142; State v. Smith, 18 S. C. 149; State v. Sharpe, 132 S. C. 236, 128 S. E. 722; State v. Jones, 86 S. C. 17, 67 S. E. 160.          The seventh exception imputes error to the presiding judge "in admitting in evidence the ......
  • City of Greenville v. Chapman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 7, 1947
    ...... . .           We. have held in many cases that a motion to elect is addressed. to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Rountree, 80 S.C. 387, 61 S.E. 1072, 22 L.R.A.,N.S.,. 833; State v. Bouknight, 55 S.C. 353, 33 S.E. 451,. 74 Am.St.Rep. 751; State v. Sheppard, ...State v. Lee, 203 S.C. 536, 28 S.E.2d 402, 149 A.L.R. 1300; State v. Williams, 202 S.C. 408, 25 S.E.2d 288; State v. Woodard, 38 S.C. 353, 17 S.E. 135; State v. Scott, 15 S.C. 434. These cases hold that where offenses. are of the same character and spring from the same. ......
  • City Of Greenville v. Chapman, 15922.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 7, 1947
    ......State v. Roun-tree, 80 S.C. 387, 61 S.E. 1072, 22 L.R.A, N.S., 833; State v. Bouknight, 55 S.C. 353, 33 S.E. 451, 74 Am.St.Rep. 751; State v. ...State v. Lee, 203 S.C. 536, 28 S.E. 2d 402, 149 A.L.R. 1300; State v. Williams, 202 S.C. 408, 25 S.E.2d 288; State v. Woodard, 38 S.C. 353, 17 S.E. 135; State v. Scott, 15 S.C. 434. These cases hold that where offenses are of the same character and spring from the same ......
  • 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