State v. Bodiford, 22143
| Decision Date | 18 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 22143,22143 |
| Citation | 318 S.E.2d 567,282 S.C. 378 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Harry E. BODIFORD, Appellant. |
Alexander S. Macaulay of Miley, Macaulay, Day & Agnew, Walhalla, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and State Attys. Agnes Dale Moore and Susan A. Lake and Sol. James C. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant was involved in a motorcycle accident resulting in the death of his passenger. He was charged with driving under the influence and was subsequently indicted for reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter. He appeals the denial of his motion to quash the indictment. We affirm.
Appellant argues the circuit court was without subject matter jurisdiction because the offenses for which he was indicted were repealed by implication upon enactment of S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2945 (Supp.1983). Section 56-5-2945 provides a penalty for inflicting injury or death while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Appellant's argument is without merit. Section 56-5-2945 does not expressly repeal the existing offenses of involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide. Repeal by implication is not favored and will not be applied if there is any other reasonable construction of the statute. Strickland v. State, 276 S.C. 17, 274 S.E.2d 430 (1981); In Re Shaw, 274 S.C. 534, 265 S.E.2d 522 (1980). Section 56-5-2945 specifies driving under the influence as an element. Because this element is not required for involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide, the new statute clearly creates a distinct offense. This construction indicates repeal by implication was not intended.
Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kornahrens, 22618
...may support an indictment for one of several distinct offenses. State v. King, 289 S.C. 371, 346 S.E.2d 323 (1986); State v. Bodiford, 282 S.C. 378, 318 S.E.2d 567 (1984). Appellant was indicted for capital murder, S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-20 (1985). While the grand jury could have indicted app......
-
Stone v. State (City of Orangeburg), 24050
...if there is any other reasonable construction of the statute. State v. Webb, 301 S.C. 66, 389 S.E.2d 664 (1990); State v. Bodiford, 282 S.C. 378, 318 S.E.2d 567 (1984). The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. Gilstrap v. South......
-
State v. Webb, 23165
...by implication is not favored and will not be applied if there is any other reasonable construction of the statute. State v. Bodiford, 282 S.C. 378, 318 S.E.2d 567 (1984). Murder arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle is a crime in this State. Simmons v. State, 264 S.C. 417, 215 S.......
-
State v. King
...offenses of involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide, but instead intended to supplement these offenses. See State v. Bodiford, 282 S.C. 378, 318 S.E.2d 567 (1984). These offenses give the Courts a broad spectrum of offenses to apply in appropriate Accordingly, we hold that involuntar......