State v. Hay

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Hay

132 S.E. 613, 136 S.C. 300, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 120

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 7, 1926

Docket11953

StatusPublished

This text of 132 S.E. 613 (State v. Hay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Hay, 132 S.E. 613, 136 S.C. 300, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 120 (S.C. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice; Watts.

“The defendant was indicted for manufacturing and having in his possession contraband whisky, and was tried before Judge H. F. Rice and a jury at the May, 1925, term of Court of General Sessions for Barnwell County. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to manufacturing liquor, with recommendation to the mercy of the Court. Prior to the defendant’s being sentenced, a motion for a new trial was made upon the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to warant a conviction on the charges set out in the indictment. The motion was refused, and the Court sentenced the defendant to serve twelve months, eight of which were suspended.”

The first exception charges error on the part of His Honor, Judge Rice, in refusing the motion for'a new trial, for the reason that there1 was not sufficient evidence to connect the defendant with the manufacture of intoxicating liqpor. This exception "must be sustained. A careful examination of the evidence fails to show the guilt of the defendant by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It simply raises a suspicion of his guilt and that suspicion not even a grave one. The case at bar is not even as strong as the recent case of State v. Brock, 130 S. C., 252; 126 S. E., 765, where this Court held that the evidence was insufficient to justify the submission of the case to the jury. ■ The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed.

*302 Reversed.

Messrs. Justices Cothran, BeEase and Stabler concur. Mr. Chief Justice Gary did not participate.'

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice; Watts.

“The defendant was indicted for manufacturing and having in his possession contraband whisky, and was tried before Judge H. F. Rice and a jury at the May, 1925, term of Court of General Sessions for Barnwell County. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to manufacturing liquor, with recommendation to the mercy of the Court. Prior to the defendant’s being sentenced, a motion for a new trial was made upon the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to warant a conviction on the charges set out in the indictment. The motion was refused, and the Court sentenced the defendant to serve twelve months, eight of which were suspended.”

The first exception charges error on the part of His Honor, Judge Rice, in refusing the motion for'a new trial, for the reason that there1 was not sufficient evidence to connect the defendant with the manufacture of intoxicating liqpor. This exception "must be sustained. A careful examination of the evidence fails to show the guilt of the defendant by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It simply raises a suspicion of his guilt and that suspicion not even a grave one. The case at bar is not even as strong as the recent case of State v. Brock, 130 S. C., 252; 126 S. E., 765, where this Court held that the evidence was insufficient to justify the submission of the case to the jury. ■ The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed.

*302 Reversed.

Messrs. Justices Cothran, BeEase and Stabler concur. Mr. Chief Justice Gary did not participate.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E. 613, 136 S.C. 300, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hay-sc-1926.