State v. Munn, No. 22742

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtHARWELL; NESS, C.J., GREGORY and FINNEY, JJ., and BRUCE LITTLEJOHN
Citation292 S.C. 497,357 S.E.2d 461
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. James Coker MUNN, Appellant. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 22742
Decision Date05 May 1987

Page 461

357 S.E.2d 461
292 S.C. 497
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
James Coker MUNN, Appellant.
No. 22742.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard May 5, 1987.
Decided June 22, 1987.

Page 462

[292 S.C. 498] James C. Cox, Jr. of Saleeby, Cox & Beldsoe, P.A., Hartsville, and Ronald M. Childress of Childress and Mille, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Amie L. Clifford, Columbia, and Solicitor J. Dupre Miller, Bennettsville, for respondent.

HARWELL, Justice:

Appellant was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree. We reverse and remand.

Appellant was indicted for criminal sexual conduct in the second degree pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-653 (1976). The trial judge charged the jury, however, only on criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-655(3) (1976). The jury returned a verdict of guilty.

[292 S.C. 499] A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to be tried only on the charges set forth in the indictment. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-19-10 (1976). The test of sufficiency of an indictment is whether or not it contains the necessary elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to defend. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-19-20 (1976); State v. Tabory, 262 S.C. 136, 202 S.E.2d 852 (1974).

Criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, as set forth in the indictment, requires that an actor use aggravated coercion to accomplish sexual battery. The term "aggravated coercion" means that the sexual battery must occur under circumstances where the victim's consent is lacking. State v. Cox, 274 S.C. 624, 266 S.E.2d 784 (1980). Criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree, the offense on which the jury was instructed, requires that an actor engage in a sexual battery with a victim who is at least fourteen years of age but less than sixteen years of age and the actor be in a position of familial, custodial, or official authority to coerce the victim to submit, or be older than the victim. Since Section 16-3-655(3) includes the additional element of an age requirement, it is not a lesser included offense of Section 16-3-653.

Page 463

Appellant did not make an objection about this matter at trial. Defects in the indictment which are of such a fundamental character as to make the indictment wholly invalid are not subject to waiver by a defendant. 41 Am.Jur.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • Joseph v. State, No. 25539.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 14, 2002
    ...any subsequent prosecution." State v. Owens, supra (citing State v. Owens, 293 S.C. 161, 165, 359 S.E.2d 275, 277 (1987);5 State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 357 S.E.2d 461 (1987) (test of sufficiency of indictment is whether it contains necessary elements of offense intended to be charged and su......
  • Cabbagestalk v. McFadden, No.: 5:14-cv-03771-RMG-KDW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • June 8, 2015
    ...in the court room period. (See S.C. Code Ann. § 17-19-10 (1985) accord Hopkins v. State, 317 S.C. 7, 451 S.E.2d 389 (1994); State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 357 S.E.2d 461 (1987), Browning v. State 320 S.C. 366, 465 S.E.2d 358 (1995), State v. Beachum, 288 S.C. 325 [last line illegible]Ground E......
  • State v. Gentry, No. 25949.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 7, 2005
    ...by this Court. Id. However, as was done by the Supreme Court in Bain, this Court broadened the meaning of jurisdiction in State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 357 S.E.2d 461 (1987). Prior to Munn, the rule was that any objection to the sufficiency of the indictment, i.e. that the indictment was def......
  • State v. Elliott, No. 25356.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 4, 2001
    ...it can be explained away as a common law anomaly. 5. S.C. Const. art. I, § 11; S.C.Code Ann. § 17-19-10 (1985); see, e.g., State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 357 S.E.2d 461 6. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-19-20 (1985); see, e.g., State v. Owens, 293 S.C. 161, 359 S.E.2d 275 (1987), subsequent history omitt......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 cases
  • Joseph v. State, No. 25539.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 14, 2002
    ...any subsequent prosecution." State v. Owens, supra (citing State v. Owens, 293 S.C. 161, 165, 359 S.E.2d 275, 277 (1987);5 State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 357 S.E.2d 461 (1987) (test of sufficiency of indictment is whether it contains necessary elements of offense intended to be charged and su......
  • Cabbagestalk v. McFadden, No.: 5:14-cv-03771-RMG-KDW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • June 8, 2015
    ...in the court room period. (See S.C. Code Ann. § 17-19-10 (1985) accord Hopkins v. State, 317 S.C. 7, 451 S.E.2d 389 (1994); State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 357 S.E.2d 461 (1987), Browning v. State 320 S.C. 366, 465 S.E.2d 358 (1995), State v. Beachum, 288 S.C. 325 [last line illegible]Ground E......
  • State v. Gentry, No. 25949.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 7, 2005
    ...by this Court. Id. However, as was done by the Supreme Court in Bain, this Court broadened the meaning of jurisdiction in State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 357 S.E.2d 461 (1987). Prior to Munn, the rule was that any objection to the sufficiency of the indictment, i.e. that the indictment was def......
  • State v. Elliott, No. 25356.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 4, 2001
    ...it can be explained away as a common law anomaly. 5. S.C. Const. art. I, § 11; S.C.Code Ann. § 17-19-10 (1985); see, e.g., State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 357 S.E.2d 461 6. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-19-20 (1985); see, e.g., State v. Owens, 293 S.C. 161, 359 S.E.2d 275 (1987), subsequent history omitt......
  • 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