State v. Carter
| Decision Date | 02 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 2563,2563 |
| Citation | 324 S.C. 383,478 S.E.2d 86 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Dell Layfette CARTER, Appellant. |
Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Columbia, and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, York, for respondent.
Dell Layfette Carter was indicted for attempted armed robbery, assault with intent to kill, use of a deadly weapon during a violent crime, and threatening a public official. At trial, the jury was unable to agree on the first three charges, but found Carter guilty of the crime of threatening a public official. Carter appeals the conviction. We affirm. 1
The indictment charged Carter with "wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly delivering or conveying to a public official, to-wit: Officer R.L. Ervin, a verbal communication which contained threats to take the life or to inflict bodily harm upon the said victim" in violation of S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-1040 (1985 and Supp.1995). The alleged victim, Rayford L. Ervin, Jr., was a police officer for the City of Clover.
At trial, Officer Ervin testified he was investigating the attempted armed robbery with which Carter was later charged. The suspect had entered Rick's Party Shop, come over the counter holding a butcher knife, and demanded money from the manager. She refused, pushed the suspect away, and ran toward the door. The suspect followed the manager with the knife, but she was able to escape into the street.
Ervin went to Rick's Party Shop, where he received a description of the suspect. He then proceeded to an area where he had been told the suspect had gone. At some point, Ervin saw Carter come out of the woods. Ervin approached Carter and made him lie down in the roadway. Carter started to argue. Eventually, two other police officers came to the scene. Ervin and the other officers testified Carter threatened to "shoot [Ervin's] fat ass."
At the close of the evidence, Carter moved for a directed verdict. The trial court denied the motion and further ruled it would charge that a police officer is considered a public official.
Carter argues on appeal Officer Ervin was not a public official as that term is defined in S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-1040 (1985 and Supp.1995) and, therefore, the trial court should have directed a verdict on the charge of threatening a public official. We disagree.
S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-1040 (1985 and Supp.1995) states in pertinent part as follows:
It is unlawful for any person to knowingly and wilfully deliver or convey to a public official ... any letter or paper, writing, print, missive, document, or electronic communication or any verbal or electronic communication which contains any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the public official....
(1) "Public official" means any elected or appointed official of the United States or of this State or of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of this State.
This court recently addressed the question of whether an individual is a public official within the meaning of § 16-3-1040 in State v. Bridgers, --- S.C. ----, 473 S.E.2d 829 (App.1996) (Davis Adv.Sh. No. 16 at 11). In Bridgers, this court held that highway patrol officers cannot be considered public officials within the meaning of § 16-3-1040 because they are not "elected or appointed." In contrast, however, municipal police officers are elected or appointed to their positions. See S.C. Const. art. V, § 24 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Simmons
...court. State v. Tucker, 324 S.C. 155, 478 S.E.2d 260 (1996); McCrary v. State, 249 S.C. 14, 152 S.E.2d 235 (1967); State v. Carter, 324 S.C. 383, 478 S.E.2d 86 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Anderson, 318 S.C. 395, 458 S.E.2d 56 (Ct.App.1995). The court's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal abs......
-
State v. Rivera
... ... same general nature or character and spring from the same ... series of transactions, (2) are committed by the same ... offender, and (3) require the same or similar ... proof.'” Simmons, 352 S.C. at 351, 573 ... S.E.2d at 861 (quoting State v. Carter, 324 S.C ... 383, 386, 478 S.E.2d 86, 88 (Ct. App. 1996)). [O]ffenses are ... considered to be of the same general nature where they are ... interconnected.” Simmons, 352 S.C. at 350, 573 ... S.E.2d at 860 ... Applying ... the foregoing to the facts ... ...
-
State v. Davis
...same or similar proof.’ " State v. Simmons , 352 S.C. 342, 351, 573 S.E.2d 856, 861 (Ct. App. 2002) (quoting State v. Carter , 324 S.C. 383, 386, 478 S.E.2d 86, 88 (Ct. App. 1996) ). "Offenses are considered to be of the same general nature where they are interconnected." Id. at 350, 573 S.......
- Fuller v. Blanchard