State v. Johnson
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before -, J., Greenville, Indictment against Arthur Johnson. From sentence, on verdict of guilty, defendant appeals. cites: What is necessary to show intent to ravish: Roscoe’s Cr. Ev., 811; 23 Ency., 864; 83 S. W., 689. Cases in which evidence held insufficient: 90 Ala., 624; 77 A. D., 336; 12 Tex. App., 194; 73 Ia., 255; 86 N. C., 658; 67 Miss., 356; 34 S. E., 135; 49 S. E., 336.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Hydricic.
The defendant appealed from a conviction of assault and battery, with intent to ravish.
The exceptions allege error of the Circuit Court in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty, and in refusing to grant a new trial, on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict.
This Court has so frequently held that its jurisdiction, in law cases, extends only to a review of alleged errors of law, and that it cannot set aside verdicts and grant new trials, in such cases, on the grounds of mere insufficiency of…
2Cited by10 opinions
- State v. TucknessSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1971
- Edie v. ColemanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1940
- State v. SheaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1955
- State v. FloydSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1934
- State v. SandersSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1912
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.