State v. Gregory

Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1941 · Evidence

198 S.C. 98 (1941)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidenceembezzlementpublic fundsthird-party guilt evidencecircumstantial evidencetrial court discretionstatutory presumptionburden of production

Facts

The defendant was charged with embezzling funds of the Spartanburg Water Works while serving as its secretary and treasurer. At his second trial, the State confined its proof chiefly to certain unrecorded "miscellaneous items" rather than other possible shortages, including a hospital water account shortage and a possible petty cash shortage. The defendant sought to introduce evidence suggesting that other employees or other shortages might explain the losses or indicate another person's guilt. The jury found him guilty of embezzling $733.53, and he received a sentence of seven years' imprisonment and an $800 fine.

Issue

Did the trial court err in excluding evidence aimed at suggesting another person committed the embezzlement, in charging the jury on the statutory presumption arising from receipt of public funds and failure to account, and in imposing the sentence entered here? More broadly, were the evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and denial of a directed verdict reversible error?

Rule

Ordinarily, the conduct of a trial, including the admission and exclusion of evidence, lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion, legal error, and resulting prejudice. Evidence offered by an accused to show that another committed the crime is admissible only when it consists of facts inconsistent with the accused's guilt and raising a reasonable inference of innocence; evidence that merely casts bare suspicion or conjectural inference on another is inadmissible. Under the embezzlement statute, production of evidence tending to prove that a public officer or person received public funds and failed to account for them gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of fraudulent appropriation, and the statute is not limited to proof of manual receipt in the narrow sense urged by the defendant.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Dana Mercer is tried for embezzling unrecorded permit-fee payments from the city sanitation office. Dana offers evidence that six months earlier, clerk Owen Patel was reprimanded for taking cash from an employee birthday fund kept in a different desk and later repaying it.

Should the trial judge admit Dana's evidence to show Owen may have committed the charged embezzlement?

Explanation. Evidence that another person committed the crime is admissible only if it consists of facts inconsistent with the defendant's guilt and raises a reasonable inference of the defendant's innocence. Evidence of remote, disconnected acts that merely create suspicion or conjecture about another person is inadmissible, especially where it would inject collateral issues.