Case ID: sc_142/html/0069-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. ChiEE Justice Watts.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

12024
    STATE v. WEBBER
    (140 S. E., 250)
    Criminal Law- — -Where Accused Made No Motion to Direct Verdict, Complaint on Appeal That Evidence Was Insufficient to Warrant Verdict Was Too Late. — Where defendant made no motion for a directed verdict, complaint on appeal that Court erred in not granting new trial on ground of insufficiency of evidence to warrant verdict of guilty came too late.
    Before SeasE, J., Union, May Term, 1926.
    Affirmed.
    H. H. Webber was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.
    
      Mr. P. D. Barron, for appellant,
    cites: To use as an illustration in a charge such hypothetical statements as would likely impress the jury that the Judge had in mind the evidence in the case being tried is a charge upon the facts 91 S. C., 201. Directed verdict of acquital or new trial should have been granted: 131 S. E., 767.
    
      Solicitor I. C. Blackwood, for respondent.
    July 1, 1927.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. ChiEE Justice Watts.

This is an appeal arising out of the conviction and sentence of the defendant on an indictment charging violation of the prohibition law (Cr. Code 1922, §§ 820-888, as amended). It is a case where a conviction rests largely upon circumstantial evidence.

No motion was made by the defendant for a directed verdict on the ground that evidence did not establish defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After conviction, a motion was made for a new trial, which was refused.

Exceptions 1 and 2 complain of error in his Honor Judge Sease’s charge to the jury, and exception 3 complains of error in not granting a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to warrant a verdict of guilty.

The third exception must be overruled, as no motion was made by the defendant for a directed verdict, and the point now raised comes too late. State v. Jackson, 122 S. C., 497; 115 S. E., 750; State v. Carson, 131 S. C., 47; 126 S. E., 757.

We see no error in his Honor’s charge to the jury. If the defendant wanted a fuller and more enlarged charge by his Honor, his counsel should have submitted requests.

All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Cothran, BleasE and Stabler and Mr. Acting Associate Justice Ramage concur.