State v. Smart, 21149
Decision Date | 13 February 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 21149,21149 |
Citation | 274 S.C. 303,262 S.E.2d 911 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | The STATE, Appellant, v. Ronald F. SMART, Respondent. |
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes, Columbia, and Sol. Donald V. Myers, Lexington, for appellant.
H. Patterson McWhirter and William P. Walker, Jr., Lexington, for respondent.
The defendant is charged with murder and the State seeks the death penalty. In anticipation of trial, the defendant moved for an order (1) prohibiting the State from voir dire examination of jurors and (2) requiring the State to open its file to defendant for unlimited discovery. Both motions were granted and the State has appealed.
The lower court, in prohibiting the State from voir dire examination of jurors, reasoned that the absence of any reference in Section 16-3-20(D), 1976 Code of Laws, as amended, to a right of the State to examine jurors in death cases impliedly repealed the discretionary authority of a trial judge to permit voir dire examination of jurors in such cases by the State. He, therefore, ruled that the State was prohibited, As a matter of law, from conducting a voir dire examination of jurors in a death case. In so ruling, he erred.
Section 16-3-20(D), as amended, provides:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14-7-1020, in cases involving capital punishment any person called as a juror shall be examined by the attorney for the defense.
Section 14-7-1020, referred to in Section 16-3-20(D), states in pertinent part, that the court shall on motion of either party in the suit examine any person called as a juror to determine his or her indifference in the cause. This court has held that, under this section, whether or not counsel is permitted to conduct the voir dire examination of the juror or such examination is conducted by the court is within the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Britt, 237 S.C. 293, 117 S.E.2d 379.
The evident purpose of Section 16-3-20(D) is to secure to counsel for the defense in death cases the right to also question jurors during their voir dire examination. This is the sole limitation upon the discretion of the court in voir dire examinations authorized under Code Section 14-7-1020. That section is not repealed and the reference to it in Section 16-3-20(D) impliedly recognizes that, in all other respects, the discretion of the court in the conduct of voir dire examinations continues to exist; and we so hold.
Therefore, the lower court was in error in holding As a matter of law that the State had no right to conduct a voir dire examination of jurors in a case where the death penalty is sought.
The State has additionally challenged the trial judge's ruling which required the Solicitor to turn over his entire investigatory file to the defense for discovery purposes.
After the defendant's arrest, but prior to a thorough investigation of the crime scene by the authorities,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Plath
...of discovery in criminal cases in South Carolina, and the solicitor is not required to turn over his entire file. State v. Smart, 274 S.C. 303, 262 S.E.2d 911 (1980). By turning over the entire file, the solicitor far exceeded what he was required to 8. Plath contends because of prejudicial......
-
State v. Goolsby
...jurors. § 16-3-20(D). This exception has no merit. We brushed the issue in Tyner and reached and disposed of it in State v. Smart, S.C., 262 S.E.2d 911 (1980), wherein we held the State's right to conduct voir dire examination discretionary with the trial judge. We find no abuse here. (4) A......
-
State v. Patterson
...agree. S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-20(D) (1985) grants a capital defendant the right to examine jurors through counsel. State v. Smart, 274 S.C. 303, 262 S.E.2d 911 (1980) (Smart I ). This section, however, has been held not to enlarge the scope of voir dire delineated in S.C.Code Ann. § 14-7-1020......
-
State v. Norris
...defense in death cases the right to also question jurors during the voir dire examination." (Emphasis supplied). State v. Smart, 274 S.C. 303, 305, 262 S.E.2d 911, 912 (1980). Appellant next contends the trial judge, in excusing certain jurors, violated S.C.Code Ann. § 14-7-890 (1976 & Supp......