Case ID: sc_111/html/0352-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Watts.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

10123
    STATE v. MARTIN.
    (98 S. E. 127.)
    1. Criminal Law —Harmless Error —Instructions.—An instruction upon conspiracy in the tidal of one fo two defendants accused.of using an automobile without owner’s consent and malicious mischief to personal property, if error, was harmless, where the Court instructed that there was no charge of conspiracy.
    2. Criminal Law — Appeal — Exceptions. — Exceptions which are too general will not be considered.
    Before Wilson, J., Greenville, Fall term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    B. B. Martin was convicted of using an automobile without the owner’s consent and of malicious mischief to personal property, and he appeals.
    
      Mr. IT. Burbage, for appellant,
    submits: That as neither the indictment alleged, nor the law said anything about conspiracy, it was error to charge the law as to conspiracy: 88 S. C. 230; 40 S. C. 299. The charge was upon the facts: 28 S. C. 250; 28 S. C. 4; 24 S. C. 591; 68 S. C. 153; 68 S. C. 68; 32 S. C. 45; 36 S. C. 479; 99 S. C. 333; 100 S. C. 32; 84 S. C. 399; 96 S. C. 385. As to the charge in reference to the count for malicious mischief: 91 S. C. 201.
    
      Mr. Solicitor I. Robert Martin, for State-respondent,
    cites: As to the charge upon conspiracy: 88 S. C. 229; 63 S. C. 549; 80 S. C. 376; 68 S. C. 426. As to malicious mischief: 88 S. C. 238; 88 S. C. 229.
    January 21, 1919.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

The defendant was tried alone on a joint indictment with one George Williams, alleging joint use of an automobile without owner’s consent, and malicious mischief to personal property. The absent defendant, was in the army. The defendant was tried before Judge Wlison, and a jury, at the Court of General Sessions for Greenville county. After conviction and sentence, defendant appeals and by thirteen exceptions imputes error and seeks reversal. The first six exceptions present the same question.

Was it error to charge law- with reference to conspiracy, under the circumstances as developed under the evidence in the case? We see no incorrectness in the law as charged by his Honor. The Court instructed the jury that there was no charge of conspiracy, and this, in any phase of the case, was harmless and not prejudicial, and the jury had the right to pass upon all the facts of the case and apply the facts applicable to the law as charged by his Honor, and these exceptions cannot be sustained as the law charged was correct. These exceptions are overruled.

Exceptions 7, 10 and 11 complaint of-error in that the Court charged upon the facts. The exceptions are overruled, being without merit.

Exception 8 is overruled, being without merit.

Exceptions 9 and 12 are overruled. These exceptions are too general for consideration.

Exception 13 is overruled. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. All exceptions overruled.

Judgment affirmed.