The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1881-12-01
sUpREME COURT DECISIONS.
Joindcr of Felonlcs In Tndictment--Testi.
mony or Accomplico.

mony or Accomplish.
The State rs. Asa Scott ct al.
The indictment in this case contained
count for burglary, count for arson and
count for grand larceny. Tho jury rendered
q general verdict of guilty, upon which the
| defendants moved before the Circuit Judge
to arrest til, judgment and for u new trial,
substantially upon the following grounds:
LIST. Because there was an improper join
der of offences in the indictment.
2d. Because the Judge erred In instruct
ing the jury that where two or more persons
arc on trial and the testimony of an accom-
plce Is relied on, which is corroborated as
to 5ne of the accused and not as to the others,
tt Is will warrant the jury in finding all OF
the defendants guilty. These motions wero
| refused except so far rs the motion to arrest
the Judgment for arson was concerned,
which was granted. The defendants ap.
pealed.
The Supreme Court decides as follows
The rule 'as to the joinder of offences is.
! several distinct felonies may be joined in the
same indictment; but, when tho several felo-
MES charged all grow ont of the same trans-
| action. the jury should be distinctly in
structed as to the effect of general verdict
OF guilty. which Is understood to flnd the
highest offence charged, if there is testimony
to support it, in order that they may shape
their verdict 30 as to conform to their real
convictions of finding upon each count sepa.
| rately. If, however. distinct felonies are
charged III separate counts, not growing out
OF tho same transaction, then the proper
practice is to require the prosecuting officer
to select one of the felonies and confine him
self to it, even though no motion to that
effect should be made by the accused. Young
VS.. King, l.. R.. 90; State vs.. johnson, 8
Hill. /; State vs. Lidwell, s Strob., 1; State
ua oil ntx n,
Cbeves, los.
In this case it does not appear whether
tho felonies charged all grew out of the same
act, for although it is asserted in the argu-
ment that such was tho fact-that the build
ing was broken into, robbed and then set
a.o sso-yst, as these S:ets do not appear IL
the 'caso" as prepared for argument here, we
cannot regard them as entering into the
case which the Court is called upon to de-
eide; nor that any instruction was given to
| tho jury to shape their verdict so as to show
chat particular felony they intended to
prosecuting officer was required to elect
upon which count he would proceed
1t is very we'll settled that the testimony
| OF an accomplice is competent, but the usual
practice 10 for the presiding Judge to advise
the j1ry not to convict upon the uncorrob-
grated testimony of an accomplice. State vs.
Wingo, IL S. c., 275. note. 1t is not neces-
! sary that the accomplice should be corrobo-
rated in every particular. but whcro he Ia
corroborated in some portions Of his testi.
mony material to the issue, the jury may
regard this as sufficient to warrant them In
giving credit 10 his whole story.
Tho verdict 5eing q general verdict, It Is
understood to apply to the highest offence
charged in the indictment. where there is
testimony to supportit it. 1t may bo that tho
testimony in this case was sufficient to con-
vict under the count charging arson, but not
sufficient to convict of either of the other
offences charged. rs no Judgment can now
be rendered under the count for arson, is
being arrested, it may be that the defend
ants have received judgment for offences. of
which the Jury did not intend to convict
them. In this uncertainty it is proper that
they ohonld have the benefit of another trial.
State va. Anderson, Strob., 455.
1t Is no confederation of accomplico to
provo that the statements made by him un-
der oath oath conformed to those which no
had previously made while not under oath.
Davis vs.. Kirksay, Q Rich, lT6.
Judgment below reversed and case re-
manded for new trial. Opinion by Nc.
Iver, A. J.
Mr.. Murphy for appellants. Mr. Solicitor
CAN'T for the State.