From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Rountree

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jan 30, 1924
127 S.C. 261 (S.C. 1924)

Opinion

11404

January 30, 1924.

Before RICE, J., Barnwell, May, 1922. Affirmed.

Marion Rountree was convicted of house-breaking and grand larceny and he appeals.

Mr. J.O. Patterson, Jr., for appellant, cites: Former jeopardy: 65 S.C. 190; 183 U.S. 394; 117 S.C. 382; 202 U.S. 344; 46 S.C. 13; 111 S.C. 331.

Mr. R.L. Gunter, Solicitor, for the State, cites: Crime was a felony: Crim. Code, 1922, Sec. 33. Petty larceny: Crim. Code, 1922, Sec. 53. Magistrate's Court had no jurisdiction and trial was a nullity: Clark Crim. L., 375; 54 S.C. 237; 2 Mill., 155; 8 Rich., 322.


January 30, 1924. The opinion of the Court was delivered by


The appellant was tried before his Honor, Judge Rice, and a jury at the May term of the Court of General Sessions, 1922, on an indictment charging him with housebreaking and grand larceny, convicted on both counts, and sentenced by his Honor to imprisonment for the term of 18 months. Appellant appeals by two exceptions which practically raise one point, to wit, the plea of former jeopardy. The indictment under which defendant was convicted alleges housebreaking and grand larceny, both of which are felonies.

The Constitution of 1895, Art. 5, § 21, defines the jurisdiction of Magistrates, and the charges in the indictment being felonies do not come in the jurisdiction of Magistrate's Court. For the defendant to be in jeopardy it is essential that the Court trying him have jurisdiction.

"According to the decisions of this state, and the weight of authority elsewhere, it may be stated, as a general rule, that one is in jeopardy when a legal jury is sworn and impaneled to try him upon a valid indictment, in a competent Court." State v. Stephenson, 54 S.C. 237; 32 S.E., 305.

The evidence in the case is ample and sufficient to warrant the jury in rendering the verdict it did.

The trial in the Magistrate's Court was a nullity, as the Magistrate Court was without jurisdiction, and defendant was not put in jeopardy by the trial in Magistrate's Court.

Exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

MESSRS. JUSTICES FRASER, COTHRAN and MARION concur.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY did not participate.


Summaries of

State v. Rountree

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jan 30, 1924
127 S.C. 261 (S.C. 1924)
Case details for

State v. Rountree

Case Details

Full title:STATE v. ROUNTREE

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jan 30, 1924

Citations

127 S.C. 261 (S.C. 1924)
121 S.E. 205

Citing Cases

State v. Howell

J.D. Parler, of St. George, and A.R. McGowan, of Charleston, for Appellant, cite: As to a person, once…

Roquemore v. Goldstein

3. However, "cash cannot be set aside as a homestead exemption" under Georgia law. Posey v. Rome Oil c. Co.,…