# State v. Littlejohn

> Supreme Court of South Carolina · November 14, 1955 · 228 S.C. 324

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560149

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE, Respondent, v. HORACE LITTLEJOHN, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of South Carolina
- **Decided:** November 14, 1955
- **Citations:** 228 S.C. 324; 89 S.E.2d 924; 1955 S.C. LEXIS 104
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stukes
- **Judges:** Legge, Stukes, Baker, Taylor, Oxner
- **Cited by:** 66 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560149

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing the "test by which circumstantial evidence is to be measured by the jury in its deliberations" and how it differs from the test used by the "trial judge in his consideration of the accused's motion for a directed verdict"
- explaining the traditional circumstantial evidence charge

## Opinion text

Stukes, Justice
(dissenting).
I regret that I cannot concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Legge. I think the issue of appellant’s guilt was properly submitted to the jury.
The “assorted whiskies” were in an upstairs room over his cafe-pool room (also referred to in the testimony as a beer tavern) and the evidence indicated that he had at least equal access to the key to the room. He owned the building. It is quite understandable that the jury discredited the testimony of his employee-roomer. It is difficult to believe that any reasonable jury would have accepted it as the truth.
Oxner, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560149. Public record. Not legal advice.