State v. Evans

Decision Date24 September 1991
Docket NumberNo. 23595,23595
Citation307 S.C. 477,415 S.E.2d 816
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Brian Franklin EVANS, Appellant. . Heard

Asst. Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., both of Columbia; and Sol. John R. Justice, of Chester, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant alleges that the Lancaster County Court of General Sessions did not have subject matter jurisdiction to accept his guilty pleas to offenses committed in Fairfield and Chester counties. We disagree and affirm.

Appellant was indicted in Fairfield County on two counts of second degree burglary and two counts of grand larceny, and in Lancaster County on two counts of second degree burglary and three counts of grand larceny. He was also charged with second degree burglary and grand larceny in Chester County, but not indicted. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the Solicitor's Office, appellant appeared in Lancaster County, waived presentment of the Chester County indictments, and pled guilty to all of the charges. He was sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years on each burglary count and ten years on each grand larceny count, the sentences to run concurrently.

Article I, § 11, of the South Carolina Constitution provides, in part:

No person may be held to answer for any crime the jurisdiction over which is not within the magistrate's court, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury of the county where the crime has been committed.... The General Assembly may provide for the waiver of an indictment by the accused.

We have interpreted this provision to mean that, in the absence of an indictment by the grand jury of the county where the offense was committed or a valid waiver of presentment of indictment, the circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the offense. State v. Beachum, 288 S.C. 325, 342 S.E.2d 597 (1986); Summerall v. State, 278 S.C. 255, 294 S.E.2d 344 (1982).

In the present case, there are valid indictments or waivers of presentment on all the charges. 1 Therefore, the subject matter jurisdiction requirements of Article I, § 11 have been met.

Appellant argues, however, that the Lancaster County court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to accept his guilty pleas to the Fairfield County and Chester County charges. He bases this argument on cases which have held the right to be tried in the county where the offense was committed is jurisdictional. See, e.g., State v. McLeod, 303 S.C. 420, 401 S.E.2d 175 (1991); Wray v. State, 288 S.C. 474, 343 S.E.2d 617 (1986); State v. Allen, 266 S.C. 468, 224 S.E.2d 881 (1976); State v. Wharton, 263 S.C. 437, 211 S.E.2d 237 (1975); State v. Wiggins, 257 S.C. 167, 184 S.E.2d 697 (1971); State v. Gasque, 241 S.C. 316, 128 S.E.2d 154 (1962); State v. Henderson, 285 S.C. 320, 329 S.E.2d 448 (Ct.App.1985).

These cases are based on a headnote appearing in State v. McCoy, 98 S.C. 133, 82 S.E. 280 (1914). While the headnote states the rule that the right to be tried in the county where the crime occurred is jurisdictional, the opinion does not contain this holding. Instead, McCoy holds a criminal defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to present evidence that the offense was committed in the county alleged in the indictment.

Although an accused has a right to be tried in the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed, we hold this right is not jurisdictional. Instead, this right is a personal privilege of the accused, and any objection to improper venue is waived if not raised by a timely objection. 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law, § 364 (1981); 1 Charles E. Torcia Wharton's Criminal Procedure, § 34 (13th ed. 1989). To the extent that the cases relied upon by appellant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • State v. Gentry
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 7, 2005
    ...Hopkins v. State, 317 S.C. 7, 451 S.E.2d 389 (1994). 25. Slack v. State, 311 S.C. 415, 429 S.E.2d 801 (1993).10 26. State v. Evans, 307 S.C. 477, 415 S.E.2d 816 (1992). 27. State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 357 S.E.2d 461 (1987). 28. State v. Beachum, 288 S.C. 325, 342 S.E.2d 597 (1986). 29. Sum......
  • State v. Young
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 2, 2005
    ...may not go into details." State v. Allen, 266 S.C. 468, 482, 224 S.E.2d 881, 886 (1976), overruled on other grounds by State v. Evans, 307 S.C. 477, 415 S.E.2d 816 (1992), and State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E.2d 315 When the prior crime is similar to the one for which the defendant i......
  • State v. Kennedy
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • November 7, 1996
    ...to an error of law." State v. McLeod, 303 S.C. 420, 423, 401 S.E.2d 175, 177 (1991), overruled on other grounds by State v. Evans, 307 S.C. 477, 415 S.E.2d 816 (1992). "The test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily give......
  • State v. Bennett
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1997
    ...other testimony in the record. State v. McLeod, 303 S.C. 420, 401 S.E.2d 175 (1991) overruled in pt. on other grnds, State v. Evans, 307 S.C. 477, 415 S.E.2d 816 (1992); State v. Galloway, 305 S.C. 258, 407 S.E.2d 662 (Ct.App.1991) (no prejudice to defendant where testimony is cumulative to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • K. Burglary and Related Offenses
    • United States
    • The Criminal Law of South Carolina (SCBar) Chapter III Offenses Against Property
    • Invalid date
    ...in the county in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, but the right is not jurisdictional and may be waived. State v. Evans, 307 S.C. 477, 415 S.E.2d 816 (1992), overruled by State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005). Evans is discussed in more detail in Chapter I.E.......
  • Chapter Six Alimony
    • United States
    • Marital Litigation in South Carolina (SCBar)
    • Invalid date
    ...be denied, stating that the "[w]ife made only minor contributions to the marriage and is able to support herself." E.D.M. at 476, 415 S.E. 2d at 816. Periodic alimony was not allowed in Brandi v. Brandi, 302 S.C. 353, 396 S.E.2d 124 (Ct. App. 1990). This was a ten-year marriage. Ms. Brandi ......
  • E. Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • The Criminal Law of South Carolina (SCBar) Chapter I General Principles of Criminal Law
    • Invalid date
    ...does not mean a circuit court lacks jurisdiction unless it sits in the county in which the offense was committed. State v. Evans, 307 S.C. 477, 415 S.E.2d 816 (1992). An accused does have a right to be tried in the county in which the offense was allegedly committed, but the right is person......
  • A. Homicide
    • United States
    • The Criminal Law of South Carolina (SCBar) Chapter II Offenses Against the Person
    • Invalid date
    ...State v. Wharton, 263 S.C. 437, 441-42, 211 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1975) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Evans, 307 S.C. 477, 415 S.E.2d 816 (1992). See State v. Horne, 282 S.C. 444, 319 S.E.2d 703 (1984). The Wharton approach to proof of venue and jurisdiction was fol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT