State v. Branham
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Waleace, J., Richland, July, 1879. Indictment against Hannibal Branham and March Harris, for burglary. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Parol evidence of the confessions were inadmissible, as they had been reduced to writing. Pressley’s Law of Mag. 208, 209; Roscoe’s Cr. Ev., tit.
Read the full summary
Before Waleace, J., Richland, July, 1879. Indictment against Hannibal Branham and March Harris, for burglary. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Parol evidence of the confessions were inadmissible, as they had been reduced to writing. Pressley’s Law of Mag. 208, 209; Roscoe’s Cr. Ev., tit. “Confessions;” 4 C. & P. 548; McNally’s Em. 45; 1 Leach 240, 310; 1 Busbee’s (N. C.) JR. 239. The confessions, as proved, should not have gone to the jury, the circumstances surrounding them making them inadmissible. JRoscoe’s Cr. Ev. 38, 50; 1 Leach 263; Whart. Am. Or. Law, §§ 687, 695; 1…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McGowan, A. J.
The defendants were convicted upon an indictment for bui’glary and larceny, at July Term of. the court for Richland county, 1879, and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary at hard labor for the term of six years. The indictment charged that the offence was committed by taking seventeen pieces of bacon from the smoke-house of Nick C. Joiner, February 9th, 1879. The proof was, that the taking was a year before, February, 1878, and the owner of the property was N. G. Joiner. The defendants were arrested April, 1879, and carried before…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. Von DohlenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
- State v. RogersSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1914
- Shirley v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1991
- State v. Von DohlenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1996