Case ID: sc_126/html/0425-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Cothran.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

11359
    STATE v. HENDERSON
    (120 S. E., 235)
    Criminal Law — In Absence op Request, Instruction on Circumstantial Evidence Held Sufficient. — A charge that defendant’s guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt held to' sufficiently cover the law of circumstantial evidence, in the absence of a request to charge along that line.
    Before Johnson, J., Spartanburg, Spring Term, 1923.
    Affirmed.
    Maggie Henderson was convicted of violating the Prohibition Law and she appeals.
    
      Messrs. C. P. Sims and L. G. Southard, for appellant, cite:
    Const., 1895, Art. 5, Sec. 26; Art. 1, Sec. 29.
    
      Mr. I. C. Blackwood, Solicitor, for the State.
    December 7, 1923.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

The defendant was convicted of a violation of the Prohibition Law (Cr. Code 1922, §§ 820-888), and appeals upon the ground that, as the evidence for the State was both positive or direct and circumstantial, the presiding Judge erred in not charging the law of circumstantial evidence. No request to charge along that line was submitted.

The presiding Judge charged the jury that it was incumbent upon the State to‘ establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The particular principle of law applicable to circumstantial evidence is embraced in this general charge, an amplification of it, and if the defendant desired the benefit of such amplification, a request to that effect would doubtless have been granted. State v. Hendrix, 86 S. C., 64; 68 S. E., 129.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.