State v. Sheppard
| Decision Date | 01 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 18569,18569 |
| Parties | The STATE, Appellant, v. Larry SHEPPARD, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., Joseph C. Coleman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbia, L. A. Williamson, Sol., Aiken, for appellant.
George H. Grant, Benjamin Surasky, Aiken, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the State from an order of the circuit court quashing an indictment charging the defendant with operating a motor vehicle, quoting from the indictment, 'while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and drugs,' in violation of Section 46--343, Code of 1962. The court held that the indictment charges two separate offenses in the same count, i.e., (1) driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and (2) driving under the influence of drugs.
The sole question involved on the appeal is whether the allegation that on the occasion in question the defendant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and drugs charged him with two offenses against the statute, or whether, as contended by the State, only one offense was charged.
The statute, in pertinent part, provides: 'It is unlawful for any person * * * who is under the influence of intoxicating liquors, narcotic drugs, barbiturates, paraldehydes or drugs, herbs or any other substance of like character, whether synthetic or natural, to drive any vehicle within this State.' The proscribed conduct is the operation of a motor vehicle by one who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. One is under the influence, within the meaning of the statute, when the ingestion of one or more of the substances listed therein has resulted in the impairment of his faculties. The operation of a motor vehicle by a driver whose faculties are thus impaired is a violation of the statute. The offense is exactly the same whether the driver's condition resulted from the ingestion of alcohol or of narcotic drugs, or of both of them.
The act of operating a motor vehicle with impaired faculties is the gravamen of the offense, and the offense is not multiplied because the condition of impairment was produced by the ingestion of more than one of the substances listed in the statute. The indictment charges only one offense which may be established by proof that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of narcotic drugs, either or both. In this situation, it is well settled that an indictment is not duplicitous for charging the accused in conjunctive terms with having committed the offense by more than one of the means specified by the statute. 5 Wharton's Criminal Law & Procedure, Sec. 1932, p. 29; 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations § 165, p....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Easley v. Portman
...vehicle in South Carolina while under the influence of intoxicating liquors, drugs, or like substances. See State v. Sheppard, 248 S.C. 464, 466, 150 S.E.2d 916, 917 (1966) ("the act of operating a motor vehicle with impaired faculties is the gravamen" of a DUIto the jury. I. SOUTH CAROLINA......
-
State v. Pickering
...v. Carsner, 45 Or.App. 115, 117-18, 608 P.2d 560, 561, rev'd on other grounds, 289 Or. 645, 616 P.2d 491 (1980); State v. Sheppard, 248 S.C. 464, 150 S.E.2d 916, 917 (S.C.1966). The legislative history to section 1312-B supports this construction. See L.D. 1681, 1682 (110th Legis.1981). Fur......
-
Com. v. Connolly
...Pa. 585, 590-591, 150 A.2d 872 (1959); Rhode Island, State v. Weeden, 94 R.I. 1, 2-3, 177 A.2d 182 (1962); South Carolina, State v. Sheppard, 248 S.C. 464, 466, 150 S.E.2d 916 (1966); South Dakota, State v. Masteller, 86 S.D. 514, 516-518, 198 N.W.2d 503 (1972); Tennessee, Bostwick v. State......
-
State v. Osborne
...liquors ... or any other substance of like character ... to drive any vehicle within this State." See also State v. Sheppard, 248 S.C. 464, 465, 150 S.E.2d 916, 917 (1966) ("The act of operating a motor vehicle with impaired faculties is the gravamen of the offense [of We find Respondent's ......