State v. Lollis
State v. Lollis.
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Watts.
The defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced for car-breaking and larceny before Judge Prince, and a jury, at ihe May term of Court, 1920,' for Anderson county, and *202 appeals, and by his appeal raises but one question, and that is whether a person who has pleaded guilty of grand larceny, who has not been sentenced, is a competent witness.
The appellant' contends that one who has pleaded guilty of larceny is incompetent as a witness.
The exception is overruled as being wholly without merit in law, morals, common sense The witness was competent. “It is the judgment,” says Greenleaf, “and that only, which is received as the legal and conclusive evidence of the party’s guilt', for the purpose "of rendering him incompetent to testify. * * * If the guilt of the party should be shown by parol evidence, and even by his own admission (though in neither of these modes can it be proved, if the evidence be objected to) or by his plea of ‘guilty,’ which has not been followed by a judgment, the proof does not go to the competency of the witness, however it may affect his credibility.” 1 Gr. Ev., sec. 375. “Conviction without judgment works no disability.” Note to section 365, Wharton’s Cr. Ev. (9th Ed.) j and authorities cited. See State v. Kennedy, 85 S. C. 146, 67 S. E. 152 , and cases cited, especially State v. Coppenburg, 2 Strob. 273.
Judgment affirmed.
Messrs. Justices Hydrick and Eraser concur.
Mr. C-i-iiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Gage absent on account of sickness.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 20 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.