State v. Green, 20548
| Decision Date | 28 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 20548,20548 |
| Citation | 269 S.C. 657,239 S.E.2d 485 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Robert GREEN, Appellant. |
John W. Foard, Jr., Columbia, for appellant.
Asst. Attys. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes and Edward B. Latimer, Columbia, for respondent.
This is a consolidated appeal from two separate convictions one for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and the other for escape. The appellant challenges his first conviction on the ground that marijuana obtained from his residence was improperly admitted into evidence since it was seized under a defective search warrant. He challenges the second on the ground that his constitutional rights were violated because he was tried in his absence without adequate notice of the charges against him. We affirm the first conviction and reverse the second.
Robert Green, the appellant, was first tried and convicted in the Court of General Sessions for Richland County for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. After being sentenced to four years and led from the courtroom, Green bolted while in the hallway of the Richland County Courthouse. He was taken into custody just outside the Courthouse a few minutes later. He was indicted on charges of escape and resisting arrest approximately one month after the above-described incident occurred.
While Green was out on appeal bond in connection with his first conviction, trial on the latter two charges was commenced in his absence on December 15, 1976. Although it appears from the record that Green may have possibly received notice of the charges and the court term in which he was to be tried through his attorney, the parties agree, and have so stipulated, that no arrest warrant had ever been served on appellant, no legal or lawful authority had ever advised the defendant that he was going to be charged or that he had been charged with escape and resisting arrest. Although the appellant was out on an appeal bond in his first case, he had never been arraigned for the purpose of setting a bond in the second case. Due to the questions raised by Green's absence, trial was continued to the next day. During the continuance, the Richland County Sheriff's office attempted to serve the indictment upon Green but was unable to locate him and he was tried in his absence on December 16th. The charge of resisting arrest was removed from jury consideration by the trial judge and appellant was found guilty of escape. He received a consecutive sentence of six months.
In the appeal from his first conviction, the appellant, to support his contention that the search warrant was defective, alleges the following: (1) the search warrant was issued without probable cause because it was too indefinite and vague; (2) the search warrant was issued without probable cause because the information set out in the affidavit was insufficient to allow a judicial officer to conclude the informant was credible and that his information was reliable; (3) the search warrant and affidavit were made out in advance and "rubber stamped" by the magistrate without an independent evaluation of probable cause by the magistrate; (4) the police officer obtaining the warrant was not placed under oath when the warrant was issued; and (5) a return of the warrant was not made within ten days as required by statute. 1
Exceptions (3), (4), and (5) appear to have been raised for the first time on appeal; additionally, there is no support in the record for any of these contentions. Exceptions (1) and (2) are without merit. Although the search warrant and affidavit were not included as a part of the record, it is readily apparent from the portions read into the record by appellant's trial counsel 2 that the warrant and affidavit were legally sufficient.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brandt v. Ozmint
...arraigned on the charge; or (3) being advised by any official or lawful authority of the charges against him. See State v. Green, 269 S.C. 657, 239 S.E.2d 485, 487 (1977). The petitioner was not arrested or arraigned, and he was not advised by any official or lawful authority of the charges......
-
State v. Mitchell
...to state prosecutions under the Fourteenth Amendment, it is specifically mandated by the State Constitution. State v. Green, 269 S.C. 657, 661, 239 S.E.2d 485, 487 (1977) (citing S.C. Const. art. I, § In 1987, the South Carolina Supreme Court noted the Confrontation Clause did not prevent t......
-
Magazine v. State, 25908.
...and therefore the defendant himself, not just his attorney, must be fully informed of the charges against him. State v. Green, 269 S.C. 657, 661, 239 S.E.2d 485, 487 (1977) (citation omitted). In Green, the defendant was not served with an arrest warrant or indictment, was not arraigned, an......
-
State v. Smith
...reveals that appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present at this and previous trials. Compare State v. Green, 269 S.C. 657, 239 S.E.2d 485 (1977). We conclude Smith waived his right to counsel by forfeiting bond, this constitutes a prior offense within the terms of S.......