State v. Biehl, 20732
| Decision Date | 01 August 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 20732,20732 |
| Citation | 246 S.E.2d 859,271 S.C. 201 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Appellant, v. Albert G. BIEHL, Respondent. |
Atty. Gen., Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard P. Wilson, Columbia, for appellant.
Charles F. Cooper, II of Ratchford & Cooper, Columbia, for respondent.
The respondent, Albert G. Biehl, was arrested following an automobile accident in the city of Cayce by a city police officer, and charged with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants, in violation of § 56-5-2930, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976). He was tried before a magistrate and found guilty by a jury. From such conviction, he appealed to the Court of Common Pleas for Lexington County. The circuit judge sustained the appeal, reversed the conviction and in essence ruled that the lower court was without jurisdiction to try and dispose of the matter. From the order setting aside the conviction, the State has appealed to this court.
It would appear that the arresting officer arrived soon after the collision and did not see Biehl actually driving a motor vehicle. The officer issued a uniform traffic summons and arrested Biehl based on facts which were disclosed upon his arrival at the collision scene, and based on information with which he was supplied. A breathalyzer test was administered, but such was not used in the trial of the case. At trial, the State relied entirely upon independent eye-witnesses, who testified that Biehl was driving a motor vehicle and was under the influence of an intoxicant.
The circuit judge upset the conviction because no warrant was procured and served upon Biehl. Section 22-3-710 relates to commencing actions before magistrates in criminal cases, and reads:
This is a statute of long standing.
In 1967, with an amendment in 1971, the legislature enacted a statute (§ 56-7-10) which, at the time of the offense here involved, read as follows:
This statute does not repeal § 22-3-710. It merely provides a method of acquiring jurisdiction in traffic cases tried in "all traffic courts."
On this appeal we must determine whether a traffic court acquires jurisdiction to hear a case involving an offense which the officer, who issued the summons, did not actually see. In State v. Prince, 262 S.C. 89, 202 S.E.2d 645 (1974), we held that an arrest warrant was not required and that § 56-7-10 vests traffic courts with jurisdiction to hear and dispose of charges for which uniform traffic tickets are issued. It is the contention of counsel for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGee v. Warden of Lieber Corr. Inst.
... ... Frankie ... Lee McGee (“Petitioner”) is a state inmate who ... filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to ... 28 ... an indictment. State v. Biehl, 271 S.C. 201, 246 ... S.E.2d 859 (1978); State v. Carpenter, 257 S.C. 162, ... 184 ... ...
-
Town of Mount Pleasant v. Jones, 2982.
...arrest does not preclude the subsequent prosecution or conviction of the defendant for the offense charged. See State v. Biehl, 271 S.C. 201, 246 S.E.2d 859 (1978) (The illegality of an initial arrest does not bar a defendant's subsequent prosecution and conviction of the offense charged.);......
-
State v. Burgess
...an initial arrest did not bar the accused person's subsequent prosecution and conviction of the offense charge.” State v. Biehl, 271 S.C. 201, 204, 246 S.E.2d 859, 860 (1978). The Biehl Court pointed out that no evidence used in Biehl's trial was acquired as a result of the arrest. The same......
-
Bayly v. State, 27109.
...was necessary to give the magistrate jurisdiction to dispose of that particular offense” (emphasis added)); State v. Biehl, 271 S.C. 201, 203, 246 S.E.2d 859, 860 (1978) (recognizing that section 56–7–10 “does not repeal [section] 22–3–710 ... [i]t merely provides a method of acquiring juri......