State v. Hardee, No. 21994
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GREGORY; LEWIS |
| Citation | 308 S.E.2d 521,279 S.C. 409 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Maderia D. HARDEE, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 19 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 21994 |
Page 521
v.
Maderia D. HARDEE, Appellant.
Page 523
[279 S.C. 412] Walter Bilbro, Jr., Charleston, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Retired Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, and Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Martha L. McElveen and Charles H. Richardson, Columbia, and Sol. Norman E. Fogle, Orangeburg, for respondent.
GREGORY, Justice:
Appellant Maderia D. Hardee was convicted of committing a lewd act upon a minor, a violation of S.C.Code Ann. § 16-15-140 (1976). He appeals, asserting numerous errors. We affirm.
First, appellant contends § 16-15-140 of the Code and the indictment violate his right to due process because the use therein of the disjunctive term "or" does not give him clear and precise notice of the nature of the accusation and denies him protection against double jeopardy.
Section 16-15-140 of the Code provides:
Page 524
It shall be unlawful for any person over the age of fourteen years to wilfully and lewdly commit or attempt any lewd or lascivious act upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child under the age of fourteen years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires of such person or of such child....
The disjunctive phrases in this statute are merely descriptive of the offensive act, child molesting; thus, there is no misjoinder of offenses for which appellant might later be charged after acquittal or conviction on the present charge. See Cole v. State, 162 Ga.App. 353, 291 S.E.2d 427 (1982). Section 16-15-140 clearly gave appellant notice of the accusation against him.
Appellant next contends the terms of the statute are vague and overbroad, thus, do not give notice of the conduct required to avoid its penalty.
In construing a statute, the language used should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. The terms appellant asserts should be defined--lewd, lascivious, lust, passions, desires, arousing, appealing, gratifying, and [279 S.C. 413] sexual--are commonplace terms which are easily found in dictionaries and other source books. This exception is without merit.
Appellant next argues the trial judge erred in failing to disqualify a prospective juror who was a close friend of the chief investigating officer and captain of the sheriff's department which was handling the case. We disagree.
Upon questioning by the trial judge, the prospective juror stated his close friendship with the officers would not affect his ability to give appellant a fair and impartial trial. Where a juror unequivocably states he is not conscious of any bias or prejudice and he can give the defendant and the state a fair and impartial trial and render a verdict...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGee v. Warden of Lieber Corr. Inst., C. A. 5:21-2777-RMG-KDW
...S.E.2d 322 (1998); State v. Wade, 306 S.C. 70, 409 S.E.2d 780 (1991); State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 351 S.E.2d 461 (1987); State v. Hardee, 279 S.C. 409, 308 S.E.2d 21 (1983); State v. Tabory, 262 S.C. 136, 202 S.E.2d 852 (1974); State v. McIntire, 221 S.C. 504 71 S.E.2d 410 (1952); State v.......
-
State v. Green, No. 23181
...must show that he exhausted all of his peremptory challenges. State v. South, 285 S.C. 529, 331 S.E.2d 775 (1985); State v. Hardee, 279 S.C. 409, 308 S.E.2d 521 (1983); State v. Elmore, 279 S.C. 417, 308 S.E.2d Page 160 781 (1983); State v. Britt, 237 S.C. 293, 117 S.E.2d 379 (1960). If app......
-
State v. Reyes, Appellate Case No. 2019-001593
...the jury his or her view that the witness is likely being truthful. See Tappeiner , 416 S.C. at 250, 785 S.E.2d at 477 ; State v. Hardee , 279 S.C. 409, 414, 308 S.E.2d 521, 525 (1983).A. Minor's TestimonyReyes contends the solicitor's above-quoted line of questioning and the trial court's ......
-
State v. Jenkins, Appellate Case No. 2019-001280
...discretion standard under option two (citing State v. Green , 301 S.C. 347, 354, 392 S.E.2d 157, 160 (1990) )); see also State v. Hardee , 279 S.C. 409, 413, 308 S.E.2d 521, 524 (1983) ("Where a juror unequivocably states he is not conscious of any bias or prejudice and he can give the......
-
McGee v. Warden of Lieber Corr. Inst., C. A. 5:21-2777-RMG-KDW
...S.E.2d 322 (1998); State v. Wade, 306 S.C. 70, 409 S.E.2d 780 (1991); State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 351 S.E.2d 461 (1987); State v. Hardee, 279 S.C. 409, 308 S.E.2d 21 (1983); State v. Tabory, 262 S.C. 136, 202 S.E.2d 852 (1974); State v. McIntire, 221 S.C. 504 71 S.E.2d 410 (1952); State v.......
-
State v. Green, No. 23181
...must show that he exhausted all of his peremptory challenges. State v. South, 285 S.C. 529, 331 S.E.2d 775 (1985); State v. Hardee, 279 S.C. 409, 308 S.E.2d 521 (1983); State v. Elmore, 279 S.C. 417, 308 S.E.2d Page 160 781 (1983); State v. Britt, 237 S.C. 293, 117 S.E.2d 379 (1960). If app......
-
State v. Reyes, Appellate Case No. 2019-001593
...the jury his or her view that the witness is likely being truthful. See Tappeiner , 416 S.C. at 250, 785 S.E.2d at 477 ; State v. Hardee , 279 S.C. 409, 414, 308 S.E.2d 521, 525 (1983).A. Minor's TestimonyReyes contends the solicitor's above-quoted line of questioning and the trial court's ......
-
State v. Jenkins, Appellate Case No. 2019-001280
...discretion standard under option two (citing State v. Green , 301 S.C. 347, 354, 392 S.E.2d 157, 160 (1990) )); see also State v. Hardee , 279 S.C. 409, 413, 308 S.E.2d 521, 524 (1983) ("Where a juror unequivocably states he is not conscious of any bias or prejudice and he can give the defe......