Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Two County Sheriff's deputies, in response to a telephone tip proceeded to a point on a road where they spotted D and his co-indictee, Robinson, walking along the roadway. Robinson ran away from the officers but was apprehended within a short distance and a check, not here involved, was taken from his person. D offered no resistance and, at the officer's request, took a seat in the rear of the sheriff's car. The deputy, who was struggling with Robinson saw D, who was then seated in the sheriff's car, drop or throw a check out of the car. The deputy retrieved the check. There was no direct proof of the material allegations of the indictment. P used circumstantial evidence to prove that the check that D had in his possession had been contained in a letter that was taken from an authorized depository for mail matter. Mrs. Sammie W. Woodall, a widow lady who lived approximately three-quarters of a mile from the spot where D and Robinson were apprehended, testified that she received each month a Social Security check made payable to her in the amount of $106.20 by United States mail and was delivered to the mailbox at her residence on the third day of each month. The check she was expecting that day was not in the mailbox; that a check payable to her in the amount of $106.20 was subsequently delivered to her and she cashed it at a store; that she had never given any check to D. There was no direct evidence to show that the check, or a letter in which it was contained, had been stolen or taken from Woodall's mailbox. D admitted to having the check in his possession and throwing it from the car. Officer McCall described the check as follows: 'It was to Sammie W. Woodall, 205 North Franklin Road, Greenville, South Carolina.' The postal inspector, McClure, testified that after D's arrest, he went to the sheriff's office where he obtained the check and subsequently caused the check to be delivered to the payee, Mrs. Sammie W. Woodall, with instructions to cash it. While the check was in his possession McClure attempted to have a copy made of it with a thermofax machine. The machine did not reproduce the name and address of the payee and McClure typed those terms on the copy. The copy prepared by the postal inspector was admitted in evidence and the terms were read to the jury by the inspector. The check itself, although described in detail in the indictment, was not offered in evidence. D was convicted and appealed. D contends that the admission of the copy and the parol evidence to show the terms of the check, without the production of the check itself or a reasonable explanation of the failure to produce it, violated the 'best evidence rule.'
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co