State v. Lambert, 21473
| Citation | 279 S.E.2d 364,276 S.C. 398 |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 21473,21473 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Gary William LAMBERT, Appellant. |
Asst. Appellate Defender Tara D. Shurling, of S. C. Commission of Appellate Defense, Columbia, and H. E. Bonnoitt, Jr., Georgetown, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Kay G. Crowe, Russell D. Ghent and Lindy P. Funkhouser, Columbia, and Sol. James O. Dunn, Conway, for respondent.
Appellant Gary William Lambert was convicted of criminal sexual conduct with a minor and sentenced to eighteen years imprisonment. We affirm.
Appellant first asserts the trial court erred in limiting him to five peremptory challenges. We disagree.
S.C.Code § 14-7-1110 (1976) provides in pertinent part:
In 1977 our rape statutes (S.C.Code § 16-3-630 to § 16-3-650) were repealed by the legislature and our present criminal sexual conduct statutes (S.C.Code § 16-3-651 to § 16-3-654) were adopted.
Peremptory challenges are not constitutionally required, but, rest solely within the discretion of the legislature. State v. Bailey, 273 S.C. 467, 257 S.E.2d 231 (1979). However, peremptory challenges serve to insure a fair and impartial trial, and to be effective must be exercised with full freedom once granted. Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965).
Here, the offense of criminal sexual conduct is not specifically enumerated in the statute, therefore, appellant was entitled to only the five peremptory challenges allowed. State v. Bailey, supra.
Moreover, the legislature, at the time the criminal sexual conduct statutes were adopted, could have amended § 14-7-1110 to include criminal sexual conduct as an offense entitling an accused to ten peremptory strikes. Until the legislature amends the statute a defendant is only entitled to ten peremptory challenges for the offenses specifically set forth therein.
Appellant next asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance because of statements he made before the jury panel. We disagree.
A motion for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Patterson, 273 S.C. 361, 256 S.E.2d 417 (1979). Moreover, appellant cannot complain of error he voluntarily committed at trial. State v. Faulkner, S.C., 266 S.E.2d 420 (1980). This exception is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Green
...of peremptory challenges is circumscribed only by the necessity of granting the accused a fair and impartial trial. State v. Lambert, 276 S.C. 398, 279 S.E.2d 364 (1981); State v. Bailey, 273 S.C. 467, 257 S.E.2d 231 (1979). We have carefully reviewed the voir dire responses of all of the j......
-
State v. Adams
...or (2) the proposed witness is incapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth"); see also State v. Lambert , 276 S.C. 398, 401, 279 S.E.2d 364, 365 (1981) ("[T]here is no fixed age an individual must attain in order to be a competent witness."). Therefore, we find the co......
-
Cartee v. Lesley
...his opinion is admissible on a fact in issue are matters resting largely in the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Lambert, 276 S.C. 398, 279 S.E.2d 364 (1981); Prince v. Associated Petroleum Carriers, 262 S.C. 358, 204 S.E.2d 575 (1974). The Cartees' witness who testified as an expert......
-
State v. Hardee, 21994
...of witnesses rests within the court's discretion, whose decision will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion. State v. Lambert, 276 S.C. 398, 279 S.E.2d 364 (1981). The trial judge determined the young boy satisfied the "moral accountability" requirement set forth in State v. Green, 267......