State v. Munn, No. 22742
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | HARWELL; NESS, C.J., GREGORY and FINNEY, JJ., and BRUCE LITTLEJOHN |
| Citation | 292 S.C. 497,357 S.E.2d 461 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. James Coker MUNN, Appellant. . Heard |
| Docket Number | No. 22742 |
| Decision Date | 05 May 1987 |
Page 461
v.
James Coker MUNN, Appellant.
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
-
Joseph v. State, No. 25539.
...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
...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.
...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.
...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......
-
Joseph v. State, No. 25539.
...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
...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.
...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.
...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......