State v. Blair
| Decision Date | 05 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 21358,21358 |
| Citation | 275 S.C. 529,273 S.E.2d 536 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Charles BLAIR, Appellant. |
George E. Crosland, Jr. and John I. Rogers, III, Bennettsville and Daniel T. Brailsford of Williams & Williams, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Kay G. Crowe and Lindy P. Funkhouser, Columbia, and Sol. J. Dupre Miller, Bennettsville, for respondent.
Appellant Blair appeals his conviction of murder for the shooting death of his grandmother.
Blair was charged with this crime in October 1977. That same month, pursuant to Section 44-23-410, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976), the Honorable James A. Spruill, Jr., Circuit Judge, committed Blair to the South Carolina Department of Mental Health for examination and observation to determine his competency to stand trial. Section 44-23-410 provides:
A report was issued January 6, 1978 declaring Blair incompetent to stand trial.
On June 15, 1978, the Richland County Probate Court, following a sanity hearing, determined Blair was no longer mentally ill and returned him to the jurisdiction of the General Sessions Court.
On August 16, 1979, again pursuant to § 44-23-410, the Honorable C. Anthony Harris, Circuit Judge, ordered Blair recommitted to the Department of Mental Health for the purpose of determining his then competency to stand trial. In a report filed with the Marlboro County Clerk of Court on November 19, 1979, the staff of the Department of Mental Health concluded Blair was suffering from "schizophrenia, paranoid type, not psychotic now," but that he was capable of standing trial.
Thereafter, neither party requested nor did the court order a hearing on the issue of Blair's competency to stand trial pursuant to § 44-23-430, Code of Laws of South Carolina (Cum.Supp. 1979), which provides:
(emphasis added)
At trial, Blair's only defense was insanity. The jury found him guilty of murder.
Appellant Blair argues the trial court erred in failing to conduct a competency hearing pursuant to § 44-23-430. The State contends Blair waived the right by failing to request the hearing. In a similar case, the United States Supreme Court found a sanity hearing cannot be waived. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). In Pate, the accused failed to demand a sanity hearing. The hearing was provided by Illinois law. The Supreme Court found the fact counsel placed the accused's sanity in issue throughout the proceedings indicated the right was not waived. In the case at bar, Blair's sanity was the crucial issue throughout the trial. Therefore, we find failure to request the hearing did not waive the right to such hearing.
Since the right was not waived, the question becomes whether the hearing should have been held. Section 44-23-430 provides a competency to stand trial hearing "shall" be held after a psychiatric examination has been ordered under § 44-23-410.
The word "shall" may be construed as permissive to effect legislative intent, particularly when the statute directs a court to determine certain matters. 82 C.J.S. Statutes, § 380, at p. 881 (1953). However, a statutory provision is generally regarded as mandatory where the power or duty to which it relates is for the security or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Charping
....... This court, too, has ordered limited remands in criminal cases, including murder and capital cases. See e.g., State v. Blair, 275 S.C. 529, 273 S.E.2d 536 (1981) (wherein the court remanded a murder conviction for a determination of whether the defendant was incompetent to stand trial); State v. Fortner, 266 S.C. 223, 222 S.E.2d 508 (1976) (wherein the court, because the trial judge failed to conduct a proper hearing on ......
-
State v. Bell
...... Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975); State v. Blair, 275 S.C. 529, 273 S.E.2d 536 (1981). The thrust of appellant's argument is that none of the State's experts ever interviewed defense counsel to determine whether appellant was assisting in his defense. However, the test of mental competence does not focus on whether a defendant ......
-
State v. Joseph
...... Given the nature and purpose of this provision of the rule, it is inescapable that the trial court's duty to require the presence of the chemist upon proper objection is mandatory, not permissive. See State v. Blair, 275 S.C. 529, 533, 273 S.E.2d 536, 538 (1981) (While the word "shall" may sometimes be construed as permissive, "a statutory provision is generally regarded as mandatory where the power or duty to which it relates is for the security or protection of private rights."). Accordingly, we conclude ......
-
Ramirez v. State
......368 Id. at 460, 596 S.E.2d at 51. As a result, the court concluded the “[applicant's plea] counsel was deficient for failing to request a Blair [ 11 ] hearing so that the [plea] court could examine [the applicant's] fitness to stand trial.” Id. Our supreme court vacated the applicant's guilty plea and granted him a new trial, noting, “[Plea] counsel's failure to request a Blair hearing prejudiced [the applicant] under the ......