State v. Lopez

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Lopez

64 S.E. 144, 82 S.C. 368, 1909 S.C. LEXIS 29

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 9, 1909

Docket7149

StatusPublished

This text of 64 S.E. 144 (State v. Lopez) 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. Lopez, 64 S.E. 144, 82 S.C. 368, 1909 S.C. LEXIS 29 (S.C. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

The defendant was convicted at the February term, 1908, General Sessions for Richland county, under an indictment for obtaining property under false pretences and was sentenced to pay a fine of $300 and to serve six months on the county chaingang.

The exceptions all allege that there was no evidence to support the conviction. There was no request to charge, no motion- to direct a verdict and no motion for a new trial on this ground. The Circuit Court was in no way called upon to make a ruling and made no ruling upon the subject. There was nothing to prevent counsel raising the question in the Circuit Court. Hence there is nothing to review. Usu-' ally such a question should be presented first to the trial *369 Court in some appropriate way, and then appeal should be taken from the ruling thereon.

In Gunter v. Fallow, 78 S. C., 458, 59 S. E., 70, it was impracticable to raise the question on Circuit before judgment as the testimony had been taken by consent and reported to the Court and judgment was rendered after the adjournment of Court. Under these exceptional circumstances the Court considered whether there was any testimony to support the judgment.

We may say, however, ex gratia that after considering the record, we cannot say that there was absolutely no testimony to support the verdict.

• The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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 Jones.

The defendant was convicted at the February term, 1908, General Sessions for Richland county, under an indictment for obtaining property under false pretences and was sentenced to pay a fine of $300 and to serve six months on the county chaingang.

The exceptions all allege that there was no evidence to support the conviction. There was no request to charge, no motion- to direct a verdict and no motion for a new trial on this ground. The Circuit Court was in no way called upon to make a ruling and made no ruling upon the subject. There was nothing to prevent counsel raising the question in the Circuit Court. Hence there is nothing to review. Usu-' ally such a question should be presented first to the trial *369 Court in some appropriate way, and then appeal should be taken from the ruling thereon.

In Gunter v. Fallow, 78 S. C., 458, 59 S. E., 70, it was impracticable to raise the question on Circuit before judgment as the testimony had been taken by consent and reported to the Court and judgment was rendered after the adjournment of Court. Under these exceptional circumstances the Court considered whether there was any testimony to support the judgment.

We may say, however, ex gratia that after considering the record, we cannot say that there was absolutely no testimony to support the verdict.

• The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 S.E. 144, 82 S.C. 368, 1909 S.C. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lopez-sc-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack