*1 418 do affected the re-
Errоrs which not have appear election, suit not be to overturn an and will allowed will be sus- reasonable every presumption indulged Rhodes, 237, 22 E. it. Smoak v. 201 S. C. S. 685. (2d) tain 346, E. Columbia, C. 58 S. Harrell v. 216 S. City (2d) of form in the of reference irregularities particular With 298, 180, sec. this, Am. case as see 18 ballot such a Jur. cited Elections, and authorities Propositions, Submission S., Elections, 173 a footnotes; (2), p. and 29 C. § J. 251, or propositions. questions Submission notice of the election
The defects in the published substantial, not could have not the form of the ballot were therefore, not the elec- and, invalidate did affected the result authorized. We tion, bonds was issuance of the are contention thereabout therefore conclude appellants’ and should be overruled. without merit fears it at least may allay Because partially when con we add the observation that appellants, be the of Anderson structed will hospital property Commissioners will County Board County upon ac duty dealing fall heavy responsibility to the best interests of the people to law and cording other that the Board will act It be cannot county. presumed wise. affirmed. are overruled and judgment
Thе exceptions concur. JJ., Taylor, Legge, Oxner STATE v. GOODSON (82 804) S. E. (2d) *2 Ellison, Messrs. Blease Yarborough & Lexington, McGowan, Florence, Appellant, for Solicitor, Re- Leesville,
Hubert E. Esq., Long, spondent, 28, 1954.
June
Stukes, Justice. *3 and and larceny was convicted of appellant burglary sufficiency is the the concerned with appeal solely is the error imputed evidence for submission to jury;- for directed verdict the trial for of motions denial judge obstante veredicto. non Con- of not and for judgment guilty review of some the therefore requires sideration of appeal the evidence. in his home a
A had in a closet resident of Batesburg inches in width and twenty depth fraction over small safe (a in which measurements) inches in outside thirty height, and and other $2,800.00 in insurance currency, policies were P.M. home at about seven left their He and wife papers. 1951, about an hour. 5, away were only .on and October been broken into had found that they their return Upon town who the police called They the removed. and safe officers, and called they enforcement summoned State law officers there- county The State and next day. in sheriff the in the investigation. after cooperated the front of the house indicated tracks at Motor vehicle A locally vehicle there. owned was loaded on a the safe the truck, from another apparently pur- stolen pickup miles about fifteen abandoned found next day pose, southwest from A few later the days safe was Batesburg. found, broken and open empty, a remote location six miles east of in Kershaw which is Blaney, County, on S.U. 1,No. a Highway main route between Batesburg Harts- ville, the of which will important significance be later seen. The safe was back of a church about Negro three miles off that and three-fourths of a mile from an highway alter- nate route as known the or Fort Percival road Jackson which about the same distance and carries traffic. little None of the contents of the safe found. It was in put evidence and sheriff and his deputies it into brought the court room at the time of Its weight trial. was variously witnesses at from 150 estimated several to 500 pounds. The stolen safe was and the officers painted found green automobile, trunk of Ford and on the rear appellant’s which of similar paint they collected from particles bumper, sent to the of the laboratory trunk and Federal Bureau Washington along separate Investigation sample Meanwhile, safe. they paint scraped impounded F.B.I., An the automobile. to its agent assigned Wash- such, trained and laboratory and ington long experienced testified he examined the un- paint scrapings chips number, der a determined microscope, composition color, of the three coats or layers paint, were a wrinkle-finish enamel and a primer, lacquer; which were obtained from the trunk of particles and those automobile from the safe were the same. appellant’s *4 tests also showed that the pigments Micro-chemical of the were same. layers three The of paint samples paint the use of a by were finally compared spectograph the used of dеtermining which is composition paint and the off burned is characteristic of light given the ele- and is ments to the present indistinguishable naked The eye. examination of the spectographic off the light given by in this case showed burning samples that the taken paint from the trunk of appellant’s automobile and that taken from the of safe were the same composition, containеd the the of this testimony In summary,
same elements. expert determined, the described scien- by was that the no tests, tific to be the same. offered explanation Appellant and the the the in about trunk of of paint particles presence his he it secondhand of car that had about except purchased before; he admitted he was in the sole nine months that pos- the examina- session of it between time crime and a of it the officers about week afterward. by tion and seizure automobile, the time which remained in storage trial, in evidence and was examined of seizure until the safe, on the Particles similar by jury. paint, on the car. were then still bumper evidence and also other by testified attempted Appellant Hartsville, in an alibi. Formerly tavern-keeper to establish nine about months before only he moved -to Batesburg had and, with- to his own-testimony, practically according trying He said that he was establish out an occupation. but no place used automobile dealer had himself as a his he home which could business, not even about space in front of it. He cars, he on street store parked and had two on hand at this five or six cars had handled were found was car in which the paint particles time. The months before from a finance him several by purchased said, and, formerly been abused. His badly he had company the crime he left in on the was that evening contention' at about 5 :30 went home Batesburg this car from his he where took mother home Hartsville to his former in which his seventeen- football game see school a high lived boy played; a former marriage son year-old The latter testified in in Hartsville. sup- his grandmother their con- claimed alibi but evidence his father’s port said, “I testimony, from his saw boy quoting flicted. The house, then at the ball my game, him at (appellant) house;” he .that he saw appellant repeated and back o’clock appellant commеnced at It eight before game. five min- maybe he there about eight, reached testified home, which was on the before, at her mother utes got
423 He asked on with him the was way, game. and took her his son when first saw and reply cross-examination he I and I was, “Well, I him to the after got game, saw right half, him the and after the game.” saw at at did not She was' testify. Myrtle mother Appellant’s a Beach at the of the trial certificate of doctor time and her, recited that he had was which treated presented pre- before, on the of the or the sumably day day trial hyper- but he did not certify tension stated complications; court, attend no or affidavit she unable to deposition to, what she if was offered. testify would Circuit present, Rule The witness who' only Court supported aрpellant’s alibi, son contention of his wife except young except home, was not said that he at their resident of who Hartsville who testified that he saw at appellant game, half-time, after nine at o’clock. The inferably between distance on the highway Batesburg Hartsville the current table of State mileage Highway Department miles; official is 102 a defendant’s witness said that it map 103 he miles. testified that drove at Appellant ordinarily miles hour. there was time for per Manifestly, him ample crime, have committed the safe where was deposited found and thereafter reached Hartsville half-time of the by football which commenced It is game o’clock. un- eight he controverted that did not return until about Batesburg noon of the next day.
When officers before questioned his arrest appellant refused to them of his give any details whereabouts on the instead, effect, crime but told night them that he court”; would “talk in and he in this persisted attitude al- offered to though they interview whom anyone he would say he was with at the time of the crime. been has ifas appeal argued only evidence which to the
pointed was the appellant identical similarity found trunk of his automobile and that safe, taken from the subsequently together the fact *6 close fit in the of the latter made it a the trunk measurements it, in it accidentally off paint whereby, removing scraped and in of the over the more safe’s sliding bumper paint However, left on latter. the admitted absence the appellant’s from home on the of the crime and the mаnifest night circum- defects in his of alibi are further proof attempted in the have considered reasonably stances which jury might their the al- conclusion adduced guilt. Having reaching alibi, for facts of contended were the considera- they leged tion of the jury. from motions to direct the refusal of appeal
Upon it aside evidence must be consid verdict set the for State еred most favorable conviction. light Smith, 224, 67 82. 220 S. C. S. E. The following v. (2d) 112, 64 is from State v. 219 S. C. Riley, pertinent quotation 127, a motion for a 128: “When considering E.S. (2d) defendant, it is the func a not directed verdict favor evidence, the of the to upon weight tion of the Court pass to the sufficiency its verdict. Where but support to determine evidence, however on which the jury may there any slight, is or non-existence of materiаl find existence justifiably issue, evidence is of such or if the character facts in as to such facts be reasonably may conclusions different therefrom, be submitted to the the issue should jury. drawn Gellis, Prince, 115, 777; 165 162 E. State v. S. C. S. State v. Rush, 43, 849; 471; 155 E. State v. S. C. S. 129 158 C.S. that, rule if evi there be any 123 765. The general E.S. fact in issue or which reasonably prove dence tending as a fairly its conclusion logical legitimate conduces a con such as raises or suspicion not merely deduction it, be to the the case should submitted jecture regard 499, 359; 126 S. C. 120 S. E. State v. Roddey, State jury. 392, Walker, 258; 121 127 S. E. State v. v. C. S. Villepigue, 293, 136 E. 215.” S. 138 S. C. contended that the jury
It is mistakenly by appellant arrived their verdict could have only by improper a hav- a mounting presumption upon presumption, ly
425 in the automobile of the paint reference to identity ing apрellant’s pos- on the safe as raising presumption safe, stolen of the own- which was burglary session of theft of it home, may of the er’s whereby appellant’s cir- But the identity been have presumed. evidence, not cumstantial presumption, possession “A found from circumstantial evi- the safe fact by appellant. S., for a C. dence be used as a basis may presumption.” J. 116, Evidencе, p. § to this case is
Generally following applicable Shields, 496, 499, in State v. 217 S. C. opinion 500, 56, E. 58: “Counsel S. (2d) appellant *7 the recently their brief state that of stolen frankly ‘possession assumed,’ but it is contended safe in bemay Claude .Shields some that while such be evidence may partici possession in no for a conclusion affords larceny, support pation committed We have held tо the con that appellant burglary. 357, 439; State v. 131 S. C. 127 S. State trary. Campbell, E. Baker, 195, 525; v. E. State v. Kim 208 S. C. 37 S. (2d) 348, These 212 S. C. 46 S. E. 273. decisions brough, (2d) are in accord with the rule elsewhere. McNamara v. general Henkle, 520, 146, 330; L. Ed. 227 U. S. 33 S. Ct. 9 Am. 60, 64, Sections and 74.” Jur., Burglary, And we think that insofar as the verdict here was evidence, circumstantial upon latter dependent was sufficient to sustain it. The from State following 246, 769, v. E. Epes, 209 S. C. 39 S. (2d) quoted 442, 446, v. in State 220 S. C. Washington, 68 S. apрroval “ 400, ‘But all that E. 401: we should cir (2d) require is that there be cumstantial evidence shall positive proof drawn, from which the inference of to the facts is be guilt is the that inference one which only could reasonably All the be drawn from the facts. circumstances taken together in to must the direction a morál to point certainty other the exclusion of reasonable any hypothesis’.” There no to the court’s to the exception charge jury and it is It not included in the record. appeal therefore assumed it contained full and accurate instructions relating the rules which the nature and of circum- govern adequacy Baker, to convict of crime. Cf. State v. stantial evidence 195, E. supra, 208 S. C. 37 S. (2d) Affirmed. JJ.,
Taylor, Oxner, Legge, Frank Eatmon, J. concur. Justice, Associate Acting Associate Acting (concur- Eatmon, Frank J. Justice ring).
While it that the reasons appears assigned opinion the conclusions Stakes are ample support Justice him in this case I that it be reached believe would not by that I amiss to add a few observations have gathered the record seem to more such fully sustain conclu- will be sions. No useful served restating purpose The writer content facts outlined will himself opinion. to the additional as regarded with referring points important such facts are deemed and will as only necessary repeat make this discussion intelligible.
-The case here centers around the theft of a safe from the Warren, home of one Calvin South Carolina. It Batesburg, found hidden near Columbia Kershaw was later County. some contеnded that at after the safe point state home the defendant taken from Warren’s the same placed *8 trunk of model Ford automobile and his 1949 trans- it later In it to the where was found. this con- ported place from the trunk of the automobile nection allegedly paint found thereof was which was from bumper supposedly the safe while was in or taken being from placed scrаped An from the Federal In- the trunk. Bureau of expert out of in this testified identified the respect vestigation and on the as the same as that bumper in the trunk on beihg Cate, Identification Officer of the the safe. M. N. South Caro- lina Bureau of testified without Investigation, contradiction that he measured the trunk of the defendant’s automobile safe measurements also the Such conclu- questiоn. established that was sufficient to sively compartment the stolen article. The accommodate latter testimony corroborative of the other evidence stolen placed in the defendant’s If the measurements property possession. had shown that the would not admit safe compartment this would been some evidence that the have defendant did thereof, nоt have as contended for the State. possession Several after the theft defendant was days arrested and incarcerated in the fol- Lexington County jail. Immediately to one of the witnesses lowing imprisonment, according time, for the state who was also the same jail at the de- fendant was another as to interrogated by1 he prisoner why Discussion between the (Goodson) bеing jailed. latter record, the same detailed as appears wit: know, Tell us what you own “Q. just your knowl- own, your Well, defendant here? A. edge, hearing, him in. The other asked him what they brought boy they said, had him for. He He (Goodson) ‘Suspicion.’ asked him, said, for ?’ He ‘Safe He ‘What asked him robbing.’ said, he He haven’t ‘They guilty. proved anything.’ Said, Said what? A. haven’t ‘They “Q. proved anything.’ else, A. he Go ahead. And asked him I “Q. something wаs, remember what it don’t now. Let’s see. He exactly him, ‘Well, said, are He you asked haven’t guilty?’ ‘They said, He ‘Are they?’ proved anything.’ Said, A. ‘Are Said what? “Q. they going prove any- words, said, I ‘I’ll when to court.’ In other He talk thing?’ go I don’t know whether else was anybody mixed probably up in it or not. Well, else; what did he else to A. say you?
“Q. anything He said to me. never anything fellow, To other overheard the conversa- you
“Q. аwful; I tion? A. Not too can’t it. quote I he Said what? A. didn’t too much that— say say “Q. mean, I I can’t remember now. right he he take the is that But said wouldn’t you say rap,
“Q. that.” A. like Something right?
It is to note that the defendant did not important deny his conversation with fellow nor did alleged prisoner to make whatever he thereabout. any explanation attempt not under inso- defendant was Certainly any compulsion concernеd the time of this far as his fellow at prisoner conversation. While conversation attributed to alleged the defendant is of more than one inference such susceptible for the whether the determine same jury question posed The inferred his or innocence. could have con- jury that the evasive answers defendant and given by cluded assert his innocence on that oc- his failure unequivocally casion was some evidence his guilt. witness for the on defendant principal plea son who on the
alibi was young teen-age night ques- tion in a of football Hartsville. The witness engaged game father, defendant, he saw his first at testified that the home then at the of his ball and later back game, grandmother, home. The started at 8:00 o’clock and at the was over gamе 10:00 and 10:30 o’clock between that When the wit- night. he on cross-examination was asked whether ness pressed he remembered to Lieutenant F. Roy or not Wil- talking he in the Constabulary liams of the State affirma- replied then asked whether he tive. He was remembered telling father, that he had not seen his Lieutenant Williams de- o’clock, fendant, that until 10:15 and to this he an- night At this the solicitor swered asked the negative. point witness the and received the following question, reply quoted below, to wit: that, You remember him don’t that said
“Q. telling you did not see father until after the between you your game, that; 10:30? Do him deny 10:15 and or no? you telling yes A. No.” that the
If the believed witness had made different jury on other occasions this would be statements a circumstance consider as for them to of this wit- affecting crеdibility have been sufficient to convince the ness and might jury the truth he not trial. telling during *10 Taulbee for the Witness State testified that the defendant made threats witness and against prosecuting against this witness between the time of his arrest and the date of trial, in an effort to them from apparently keep testify- him in the trial. Evidence that a ing against person charged with crime or procured attempted absence of a procure witness or to bribe or him tends suppress testimony against to show of defendant’s cause and con- unrighteousness Commonwealth, sciousness of McMillan v. guilt. 188 Va. 429, 50 E. It S. be (2d) may readily conceded that the witness made statements contradictory course of during his examination and cross-examination with reference to such threats but it of the and not province jury, Court, on which occasion province say the wit- ness was the truth. if the telling Certainly concluded jury that the defendant had threatened witness prosecuting and this other witness these would be material circumstances of the defendant. bearing upon All of the to be relevant links in foregoing appear the chain of circumstances that linked the defendant to the crime below should be affirmed. charged. judgment BROS.,
SYLVAN v. SYLVAN ET AL. INC.
(82 (2d) 794) S. E.