State v. Quick

Supreme Court of South Carolina
19 S.E.2d 101 (1942)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An intent to commit a crime, even when combined with acts of mere preparation, is insufficient for a conviction; the state must prove an overt act that is a direct movement toward the commission of the crime, amounting to the commencement of its consummation.

Facts:

On May 12, 1941, law enforcement officers found two stills on property owned by Shuford Quick.
One still contained mash, and the other appeared to have been recently operated.
The stills were located approximately 100 yards from the dead end of a road leading into the woods.
As officers left, they encountered Quick driving his car on that road toward the stills.
Quick's car contained 500 pounds of sugar, a sack of mill feed, and three cases of yeast cakes, all common ingredients for making liquor.
Quick was accompanied by two other men and two small children.
Quick's home was located in a different part of the county from where the stills were found.

Procedural Posture:

Shuford Quick was charged with the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor and tried in the county trial court.
At the close of the State's evidence, Quick's counsel made a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.
The trial court denied the motion for a directed verdict.
A jury found Quick guilty of the charge.
Quick then made a motion for a new trial, which the trial court also denied.
Quick appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does possessing the necessary ingredients to manufacture illegal liquor and being in close proximity to a still constitute an overt act sufficient for a conviction of manufacturing, or is it merely preparation?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Associate Justice Fishburne

No, possessing ingredients near a still is merely preparation and does not constitute a sufficient overt act for a manufacturing conviction. To be guilty of manufacturing, a defendant must take a direct step toward the commission of the crime that goes beyond mere preparation. The law distinguishes between preparation, which involves devising or arranging the means for a crime, and an overt act, which is a direct movement toward the crime's commission after preparations are made. Here, Shuford Quick was found 100 yards from the stills with the ingredients in his car; he had not taken any initial step in the actual process of manufacturing, such as cleaning the still or mixing ingredients, as seen in precedent like State v. Ravan. Quick's actions, while strongly suggesting intent, amounted only to an act 'merely preparatory to the commission of the crime, and not an act proximately leading to its consummation.' The trial court's jury instruction was also erroneous because it implied that intent to manufacture was sufficient for a conviction, which is incorrect as intent alone is not a crime.

Analysis:

This case solidifies the critical distinction between criminal preparation and a criminal act or attempt. It establishes that simply acquiring and transporting the means to commit a crime to the general location is not, by itself, a sufficient 'overt act.' The decision requires prosecutors to present evidence of a more direct, proximate step toward the physical consummation of the offense, thereby protecting individuals from criminal liability for actions that only demonstrate intent or preliminary planning. This precedent reinforces the fundamental principle that the law punishes criminal acts, not guilty thoughts or preparatory conduct.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Quick (1942)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature