State v. Tompkins

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Tompkins

158 S.E. 836, 160 S.C. 470, 1931 S.C. LEXIS 96

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 8, 1931

Docket13167

StatusPublished

This text of 158 S.E. 836 (State v. Tompkins) 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. Tompkins, 158 S.E. 836, 160 S.C. 470, 1931 S.C. LEXIS 96 (S.C. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Bonham.

At the October, 1930, term of the Court of General Sessions, for McCormick County, the appellant was tried before Judge Rice and a jury, and convicted on an indictment which charged him with manufacturing alcoholic liquors. *471 At the conclusion of the testimony for the State, counsel for defendant moved the Court for a directed verdict in favor of defendant, on the ground that there was no evidence to connect the defendant with the still and the mash and paraphernalia for the manufacture of whisky found within two hundred or three hundred yards of defendant’s house. The motion was refused.

It is not the province of this Court to1 determine the force and effect of evidence. If there be any competent and relevant evidence tending to support the charge, the case must go to the jury. In this case there was competent and relevant evidence tending to show defendant’s connection with the still. The force and effect of it were especially within the province of the jury to determine.

We think the trial Judge was correct in overruling the motion for directed verdict.

Appeal dismissed; judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Brease and Messrs. Justices Cothran, 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. Justice Bonham.

At the October, 1930, term of the Court of General Sessions, for McCormick County, the appellant was tried before Judge Rice and a jury, and convicted on an indictment which charged him with manufacturing alcoholic liquors. *471 At the conclusion of the testimony for the State, counsel for defendant moved the Court for a directed verdict in favor of defendant, on the ground that there was no evidence to connect the defendant with the still and the mash and paraphernalia for the manufacture of whisky found within two hundred or three hundred yards of defendant’s house. The motion was refused.

It is not the province of this Court to1 determine the force and effect of evidence. If there be any competent and relevant evidence tending to support the charge, the case must go to the jury. In this case there was competent and relevant evidence tending to show defendant’s connection with the still. The force and effect of it were especially within the province of the jury to determine.

We think the trial Judge was correct in overruling the motion for directed verdict.

Appeal dismissed; judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Brease and Messrs. Justices Cothran, StabrEr and Carter concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 836, 160 S.C. 470, 1931 S.C. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tompkins-sc-1931.