Title: State v. Cooper
Citation: 279 S.C. 301, 306 S.E.2d 598
Docket Number: 21969
State: south-carolina
Issuer: south-carolina Supreme Court
Date: August 9, 1983

279 S.C. 301 (1983) 306 S.E.2d 598 The STATE, Respondent, v. Roger Dale COOPER and Frank Bryson, Appellants. 21969 Supreme Court of South Carolina. August 9, 1983. Harold R. Lowery and Richard E. Thompson, Jr., Anderson and Theodore A. Snyder, Walhalla, for appellants. Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Retired Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Columbia, and Sol. George M. Ducworth, Walhalla, for respondent. Aug. 9, 1983. PAUL MOORE, Acting Associate Justice: The Appellants were convicted of breaking and entering and grand larceny. The grand larceny conviction was appealed on the ground of error in the instructions to the jury. We reverse and remand for a new trial. *302 After closing arguments by the attorneys, the trial judge charged: In recent cases, this Court has consistently held that instructions which place the burden on the defendant to explain how he came to possess recently stolen goods are erroneous. The reasoning is that such charges allow the jury to presume that either the defendant is required to personally give explanatory testimony or in the absence of explanation by the defendant, the inference is to be considered conclusive of guilt. See, State v. DeWitt, 254 S.C. 527, 530-31, 176 S.E. (2d) 143, 145 (1970); State v. Adams, 275 S.C. 108, 267 S.E. (2d) 538 (1980); State v. Smalls, 272 S.C. 279, 251 S.E. (2d) 734 (1979); State v. Gaines, 271 S.C. 65, 244 S.E. (2d) 539 (1978); and State v. Sumner, 269 S.C. 175, 236 S.E. (2d) 815 (1977). In DeWitt, supra, we affirmed a similar jury instruction. However, we now hold that the expressions "rebuttable" and "reasonable explanation" may too easily be taken by the jury as requiring the defendant to personally rebut or explain. DeWitt is overruled insofar as it permits the use of these terms. The fact that defendants are found in possession of recently stolen property should be characterized merely as an evidentiary fact and not described as "rebuttable" or requiring a "reasonable explanation". The fact of possession is merely circumstantial evidence of guilt and should be charged as such. Reversed and remanded. LEWIS, C.J., and NESS, GREGORY and HARWELL, JJ., concur.