State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 17 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 23217,23217 |
| Citation | 392 S.E.2d 181,301 S.C. 369 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Michael Wayne WILLIAMS, Appellant. . Heard |
Four days later, without arresting Williams, the highway patrolman investigating the accident, Officer Hooten, secured a subpoena duces tecum directing Richland Memorial Hospital to produce the results of any blood alcohol tests (BAT) performed on Williams. Based upon Williams' blood alcohol content of .26 percent, Hooten obtained a warrant for Williams' arrest. He was subsequently indicted for Felony DUI.
At trial, Williams' motion to dismiss the indictment on the basis of an "invalid subpoena duces tecum " was denied. Likewise, his motion to suppress the BAT results on the grounds that the State had not sufficiently established the chain of custody was denied.
Although several issues are raised, we need address only
(1) Whether the subpoena duces tecum used to obtain Williams' BAT results was invalid, mandating dismissal of the indictment.
(2) Whether the State sufficiently established the chain of custody of Williams' blood test.
State concedes that, as no action was pending against Williams, the subpoena duces tecum was clearly defective. However, it contends that this defect did not require dismissal of the indictment. We agree.
The validity of an indictment is not affected by the character of the evidence considered by the grand jury and, if valid on its face, the indictment may not be challenged on the ground that the grand jury acted on the basis of incompetent evidence. United States v. Callandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). Here, the indictment contained no facial defect; the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thrift
...grand juries. Ordinarily, we do not inquire into the nature or sufficiency of the evidence before a grand jury. State v. Williams, 301 S.C. 369, 392 S.E.2d 181 (1990); State v. Williams, 263 S.C. 290, 210 S.E.2d 298 (1974). An exception to this general rule exists where, as here, a defendan......
-
State v. Mathis
...of chain of custody need not negate all possibility of tampering so long as the chain of possession is complete. State v. Williams, 301 S.C. 369, 392 S.E.2d 181 (1990). Id. at 424, 544 S.E.2d at 837. The Court discussed the application of the chain of custody In applying this rule, we have ......
-
State v. McGill
...of Canada, 33 F.R.D. 296 (S.D.N.Y.1963) (quashing a civil subpoena duces tecum because no action had commenced); State v. Williams, 301 S.C. 369, 392 S.E.2d 181, 182 (1990) ( “State concedes that, as no action was pending against Williams, the subpoena duces tecum was clearly defective.”); ......
-
State v. Taylor
...handlers were missing links in the chain of custody, rendering the evidence inadmissible. Subsequently, in State v. Williams, 301 S.C. 369, 392 S.E.2d 181 (1990), and State v. Cribb, 310 S.C. 518, 426 S.E.2d 306 (1992), our supreme court reiterated the holding in Benton v. Pellum, noting th......
-
D. Traffic Offenses
...blood and cannot establish who transported the blood for testing, the blood test results are not admissible. State v. Williams, 301 S.C. 369, 392 S.E.2d 181 (1990). While the chain must be complete, there is no absolute requirement that the blood be kept in any particular place during its s......
-
Chapter 26 General Provisions Governing Discovery
...January 1, 2019. For the current text, incorporating any subsequent amendments, go to www.sccourts.org/courtreg.[2] Cf. State v. Williams, 301 S.C. 369, 392 S.E.2d 181 (1990) (subpoena duces tecum was defective when there was no pending criminal case). Depositions can be taken before an act......
-
Chapter 45 Subpoenas
...proceedings are issued and enforced through the Administrative Law Court. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-320(D) (Supp. 2018).[3] State v. Williams, 301 S.C. 369, 392 S.E.2d 181 (1990). Cf. Ex parte Wilson, 367 S.C. 7, 625 S.E.2d 205 (2005) (writ of execution must be issued to conduct discovery in su......
-
Rule 1101. Applicability of Rules
...has been found regarding this proposition. Subsection (d)(2) is consistent with the case law in South Carolina. See State v. Williams, 301 S.C. 369, 392 S.E.2d 181 (1990) (the validity of an indictment is not affected by the character of the evidence considered by the grand jury and, if val......