State v. Johnson
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Moore, J., Richland, October, 1917. Edward Johnson indicted and convicted of receiving stolen goods and appeals. The following are the exceptions by defendant: (1) It is submitted that Section 204, Crim.
Read the full summary
Before Moore, J., Richland, October, 1917. Edward Johnson indicted and convicted of receiving stolen goods and appeals. The following are the exceptions by defendant: (1) It is submitted that Section 204, Crim. Code, S. C. 1912, under which the appellant was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced, violates the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in that therein and thereby the appellant, who is a .citizen of the United States, is deprived of his liberty without due process of law and is also denied the equal protection of the law, in that:…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gage.
The defendant was tried for violation of Section 204 of the Code of Laws. It is that section which makes criminal the buying or receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen. The verdict was guilty, and the judgment of the Court was- three years’ imprisonment.
There are five exceptions. Let them be reported.
1-4 None of the exceptions are well taken. It is manifes-tly not a denial of due process of law for the Legislature to make the penalty for an offense imprisonment without the alternative of a fine. There is no need to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1932
- State v. BowmanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- State v. FlemingSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1955
- State v. RookSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1934
- State v. HarrellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927