State v. Douglas, 18275
| Decision Date | 10 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 18275,18275 |
| Citation | 138 S.E.2d 845,245 S.C. 83 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Elwood Clifton DOUGLAS, Appellant. |
C. M. Benedict, III, Orian A. Manucy, Charleston, for appellant.
Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., Clarence T. Goolsby, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbia, for respondent.
The defendant has appealed from his conviction in the County Court of Charleston County of the offense of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants, second offense, in violation of Section 43-343 of the 1962 Code of Laws. The exceptions charge that the lower court erred (1) in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty and (2) in unduly limiting the cross examination of one of the State's witnesses. In addition to the questions raised by the exceptions, the defendant challenges, for the first time, in his brief the jurisdiction of the County Court.
The defendant was apprehended by a State Highway Patrolman on May 17, 1963, while operating his automobile on U. S. Highway No. 52 north of the City of Charleston. The testimony of the arresting officer shows that he observed the defendant operating his automobile from one side of the road to the other; and that at the time of arrest the defendant had a strong odor of alcohol about him, could not stand or walk without assistance, and his speech, both as to clarity and coherence, was affected. Under the foregoing testimony of the arresting officer, the exception charging error in the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict of not guilty is totally without merit.
Two officers testified that in their opinion the defendant was highly intoxicated. On cross-examination one of these officers was asked the following question: 'How much beer do you think a person would have to drink to become, as you describe it, highly intoxicated?' The trial judge sustained an objection to the question, and the defendant charges error in such ruling. The objection was properly sustained. There was no showing that the witness was competent to answer the question and, if so, it was irrelevant.
The remaining question concerns the challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court. The defendant was tried, without objection, in the County Court of Charleston County upon an indictment returned by the grand jury at a term of the General Sessions Court for that county. The same grand jury serves and acts upon all indictments for both the County Court and the Court of General Sessions. Section 8, Act No. 776 of the 1962 Acts of the General Assembly (Section 15-629.8, 1964 Supplement to the 1962 Code of Laws). After the indictment was returned to the Court of General Sessions, the case was transferred for trial to the County Court which had concurrent jurisdiction to try the offense charged against the defendant. Section 16, Act No. 776 of the 1962 Acts of the General Assembly (Section 15-629.16, 1964 Supplement to the 1962 Code of Laws). It is conceded that there is no statute authorizing such transfer. The defendant contends that, since the indictment was returned by the grand jury to the Court of General Sessions, that court had exclusive jurisdiction of the cause; and that the subsequent transfer, without statutory authority to do so, was ineffective to confer jurisdiction upon the County Court to try him. We think that the defendant waived the jurisdictional objection by his failure to interpose it at the time of trial.
Jurisdiction is of two distinct kinds: (1) Jurisdiction of the subject or subject matter, and (2) jurisdiction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dudley, 3641.
...165 (2003) ("Objections to personal jurisdiction, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, are waived unless raised."); State v. Douglas, 245 S.C. 83, 138 S.E.2d 845 (1964) (holding a defendant may waive any objection to personal jurisdiction by failing to object and going to trial on the To ans......
-
State v. Adams, 3640.
...acquired when the party charged is arrested or voluntarily appears in court and submits himself to its jurisdiction. State v. Douglas, 245 S.C. 83, 138 S.E.2d 845 (1964); State v. Langford, 223 S.C. 20, 73 S.E.2d 854 (1953). A defendant may waive any complaints he may have regarding persona......
-
State v. Johnston, 2684
...laws of the State, and is fundamental.") This is true irrespective of the desires of the parties to the litigation. State v. Douglas, 245 S.C. 83, 138 S.E.2d 845 (1964); see Castleman, 219 S.C. at 138-39, 64 S.E.2d at 251 ("A defendant may, of course, waive his objection to the jurisdiction......
- State v. Hill, 18274