State v. Suttles, 21902
Decision Date | 19 April 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 21902,21902 |
Citation | 279 S.C. 87,302 S.E.2d 338 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Arthur Edward SUTTLES and Bobby Morgan, Appellants. |
Asst. Appellate Defenders William Isaac Diggs and Elizabeth C. Fullwood of S.C. Com'n of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellants.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Retired Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr. and Martha L. McElveen, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellants were indicted for burglary and pleaded guilty to housebreaking. They now contend housebreaking is not a lesser included offense of burglary, and thus they pleaded guilty to an offense for which they were neither indicted nor waived presentment. See Summerall v. State, S.C., 294 S.E.2d 344 (1982) and State v. Martin, S.C., 294 S.E.2d 345 (1982). We disagree and affirm.
The test for determining when a crime is a lesser included offense of the crime charged is whether the greater of the two offenses includes all the elements of the lesser offense. State v. Fennell, 263 S.C. 216, 209 S.E.2d 433 (1974).
In State v. Brooks, 277 S.C. 111, 283 S.E.2d 830 (1981), we defined burglary as the breaking and entering of a dwelling house of another in the nighttime with intent to commit a crime therein. The legislature has defined housebreaking similarly, except that the offense is committed in the daytime.
We believe the legislature, by using the word "daytime," did not intend to require specific proof that the offense was committed in the daytime, but rather intended the statute to cover situations where the state cannot prove the offense was committed at night. Otherwise, instances might arise wherein the State could prove a breaking and entering of a dwelling house with intent to commit a crime on a certain date, but could not pinpoint the time of the offense, and therefore could not charge the suspect with either crime. We do not think the legislature intended such a result.
We hold housebreaking is a lesser included offense of burglary. Thus, a defendant can properly plead guilty to housebreaking under a burglary indictment. State v. Hiott, 276 S.C. 72, 276 S.E.2d 163 (1981).
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sprouse
...offense. State v. Bland, 318 S.C. 315, 457 S.E.2d 611 (1995); Murdock v. State, 308 S.C. 143, 417 S.E.2d 543 (1992); State v. Suttles, 279 S.C. 87, 302 S.E.2d 338 (1983). If the lesser offense includes an element not included in the greater offense, then the lesser offense is not included i......
-
State v. Gosnell
...included offense of the crime charged is whether the greater offense includes all the elements of the lesser offense. State v. Suttles, 279 S.C. 87, 302 S.E.2d 338 (1983). If the lesser offense includes an element not included in the greater offense, then the lesser offense is not included ......
-
State v. Kirby
...offense. State v. Bland, 318 S.C. 315, 457 S.E.2d 611 (1995); Murdock v. State, 308 S.C. 143, 417 S.E.2d 543 (1992); State v. Suttles, 279 S.C. 87, 302 S.E.2d 338 (1983). If the lesser offense includes an element not included in the greater offense, then the lesser offense is not included i......
-
State v. Prince
...the greater offense (here, conspiracy) includes all the legal and factual elements of the lesser (here, solicitation). State v. Suttles, 279 S.C. 87, 302 S.E.2d 338 (1983). While a conspiracy involves the combination of two or more persons, S.C.Code Ann. § 16-17-410 (1985), solicitation con......
-
K. Burglary and Related Offenses
...do not, however, repeal common law burglary. Housebreaking was declared to be a lesser included offense of burglary in State v. Suttles, 279 S.C. 87, 302 S.E.2d 338 (1983), with the result that indictment for the latter would support conviction of the former. This is so even though common l......
-
C. Classification of Offenses
...offense includes an element not included in the greater offense, the lesser offense is not included within the greater. State v. Suttles, 279 S.C. 87, 302 S.E.2d 338 (1983); State v. Fennell, 263 S.C. 216, 219-20, 209 S.E.2d 433, 434 (1974). In recent years the Court has tended to parse the......