State v. Hill
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 444 S.E.2d 255,314 S.C. 330 |
| Decision Date | 04 May 1994 |
| Parties | STATE of South Carolina, Appellant, v. Aaron E. HILL and Titus L. Huggins, Respondents. |
Page 255
v.
Aaron E. HILL and Titus L. Huggins, Respondents.
Page 256
This is a capital murder case. The State has appealed orders setting bail for each respondent in the amount of $50,000. The State now asks this Court to issue a writ of supersedeas to stay enforcement of these orders or, in the alternative, to issue a common law writ vacating the bail orders. Respondents oppose the State's petition and move to dismiss the State's appeal.
The State may appeal a pretrial order if the order is appealable under S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330 (1976 & Supp.1993). See State v. McKnight, 287 S.C. 167, 337 S.E.2d 208 (1985) (the State may appeal a pretrial order granting the suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case). The orders admitting respondents to bail do not involve the merits, nor do the orders affect a substantial right which determines or discontinues the action. See Mid-State Distributors, Inc. v. Century Importers, Inc., --- S.C. ----, 426 S.E.2d 777 (1993); Ex parte Johnson, 63 S.C. 205, 41 S.E. 308 (1902). Therefore, the orders are not appealable under § 14-3-330. 1 Accordingly, we grant respondents' motion and dismiss the State's appeal. This renders moot the State's request for a writ of supersedeas since a writ of supersedeas is only available where there is an appealable order. 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 413 (1993).
As an alternative to a writ of supersedeas, the State asks this Court to issue one of the common law remedial writs pursuant to S.C. Const. art. V, § 5. In support of its petition, the State contends that a defendant charged with a capital offense is not entitled to bail and, therefore, the judge erred as a matter of law in admitting respondents to bail. The State's argument is without merit.
South Carolina Const. art. I, § 15 provides, in part, as follows: "All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, but bail may be denied to persons charged with capital offenses or offenses punishable by life imprisonment, giving due weight to the evidence and to the nature and circumstances of the event...." (emphasis added). "The words of the Constitution are presumed to be used in their ordinary and popular meaning." State v. Broad River Power Co., 177 S.C. 240, 265, 181 S.E. 41, 52 (1935). The word "may" ordinarily "signifies permission and generally means the action spoken of is optional or discretionary." Robertson v. State, 276 S.C. 356, 358, 278 S.E.2d 770, 771 (1981). Consequently, we hold that the Constitution gives a circuit court judge the discretion to grant bail to a capital defendant. 2
By treating bail in capital cases differently from bail in other cases, art. I, § 15 of our Constitution recognizes the risks inherent in admitting capital defendants to bail. First, the risk that a defendant may flee in order to avoid prosecution is generally greater in a capital case than in a non-capital case. Second, because of the heinous nature of the offense usually alleged to have been committed in a capital case, the danger posed to the community by the release of a capital defendant is normally substantial. As a result of these risks, the discretion to admit a capital defendant to bail should be exercised with utmost caution, State v. Holmes, 34 S.C.L. (3 Strob.) 272 (1848), and in practice, capital defendants are rarely admitted to bail pending trial. 3
Page 257
Further, in our opinion, the Constitution's language "giving due weight to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simpson v. Owens, No. 1 CA-SA 03-0188.
...core reason for denying bail to defendants charged with capital crimes relates directly to the gravity of the crime."); State v. Hill, 314 S.C. 330, 444 S.E.2d 255, 256 (1994) ("By treating bail in capital cases differently from bail in other cases ... our Constitution recognizes the risks ......
-
Joseph v. S.C. Dep't of Labor, Appellate Case No. 2014–001115
...use of words such as ‘shall’ or ‘must’ indicates the legislature's intent to enact a mandatory requirement.”), with State v. Hill , 314 S.C. 330, 332, 444 S.E.2d 255, 256 (1994) (“The word ‘may’ ordinarily signifies permission and generally means the action spoken of is optional or discreti......
-
Windsor beyond marriage: due process, equality & undocumented immigration.
...15; OKLA. CONST. art. II, [section] 8; S.C. CONST. art. I, [section] 15; WIS. CONST. art. I, [section] 8; see also State v. Hill, 444 S.E.2d 255, 256 (S.C. 1994) (interpreting the South Carolina Constitution as giving courts discretion to grant bail in capital cases); Ex parte Howell, 245 P......
-
State v. Bray, No. 25176.
...to set forth case-specific findings mandated by Murrell, the matter must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. See State v. Hill, 314 S.C. 330, 444 S.E.2d 255 (1994) (trial court's failure to make case specific findings of fact supporting a decision constitutes an error of Finally, the ......
-
Simpson v. Owens, No. 1 CA-SA 03-0188.
...core reason for denying bail to defendants charged with capital crimes relates directly to the gravity of the crime."); State v. Hill, 314 S.C. 330, 444 S.E.2d 255, 256 (1994) ("By treating bail in capital cases differently from bail in other cases ... our Constitution recognizes the risks ......
-
Joseph v. S.C. Dep't of Labor, Appellate Case No. 2014–001115
...use of words such as ‘shall’ or ‘must’ indicates the legislature's intent to enact a mandatory requirement.”), with State v. Hill , 314 S.C. 330, 332, 444 S.E.2d 255, 256 (1994) (“The word ‘may’ ordinarily signifies permission and generally means the action spoken of is optional or discreti......
-
State v. Bray, No. 25176.
...to set forth case-specific findings mandated by Murrell, the matter must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. See State v. Hill, 314 S.C. 330, 444 S.E.2d 255 (1994) (trial court's failure to make case specific findings of fact supporting a decision constitutes an error of Finally, the ......
-
The State v. Wilson, No. 26823.
...& Supp.2009) (emphasis added). “The State may appeal a pretrial order if the order is appealable under [section 14-3-330].” State v. Hill, 314 S.C. 330, 331, 444 S.E.2d 255, 256 (1994) (finding orders setting bail for each defendant in a capital murder case were not appealable by the 693 S.......
-
Windsor beyond marriage: due process, equality & undocumented immigration.
...15; OKLA. CONST. art. II, [section] 8; S.C. CONST. art. I, [section] 15; WIS. CONST. art. I, [section] 8; see also State v. Hill, 444 S.E.2d 255, 256 (S.C. 1994) (interpreting the South Carolina Constitution as giving courts discretion to grant bail in capital cases); Ex parte Howell, 245 P......