State v. Raymond Brown

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Raymond Brown

141 S.E. 927, 143 S.C. 508, 1928 S.C. LEXIS 33

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 10, 1928

Docket12350

StatusPublished

This text of 141 S.E. 927 (State v. Raymond Brown) 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. Raymond Brown, 141 S.E. 927, 143 S.C. 508, 1928 S.C. LEXIS 33 (S.C. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Watts.

The defendant was indicted for unlawfully having alcoholic liquors in his possession. Upon the close of the State’s case, a motion for a directed verdict was made by the defendant and refused by the Court. A similar motion was made when all the testimony was in, which was also refused by the Court. Motion for a new trial was made by defendant upon the jury rendering a verdict of “guilty,” and this motion was likewise refused. The appellant has - four exceptions, but the exceptions make but one question, and that is whether there was sufficient evidence in the case to allow the case to go to the jury. The exceptions are without merit, as there was sufficient evidence, both circumstantial and positive, to carry the case to the jury, and ample testimony to sustain the jury’s verdict. All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Cothran, Brease, Stabrer and Carter concur.

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. Chief Justice Watts.

The defendant was indicted for unlawfully having alcoholic liquors in his possession. Upon the close of the State’s case, a motion for a directed verdict was made by the defendant and refused by the Court. A similar motion was made when all the testimony was in, which was also refused by the Court. Motion for a new trial was made by defendant upon the jury rendering a verdict of “guilty,” and this motion was likewise refused. The appellant has - four exceptions, but the exceptions make but one question, and that is whether there was sufficient evidence in the case to allow the case to go to the jury. The exceptions are without merit, as there was sufficient evidence, both circumstantial and positive, to carry the case to the jury, and ample testimony to sustain the jury’s verdict. All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Cothran, Brease, Stabrer and Carter concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E. 927, 143 S.C. 508, 1928 S.C. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-raymond-brown-sc-1928.