State v. Wilson, No. 23910

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: TOAL; HARWELL; FINNEY; FINNEY
• Citation: 315 S.C. 289,433 S.E.2d 864
• Docket Number: No. 23910
• Decision Date: 06 January 1992
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Ronald Monroe WILSON and Teresa Ann Wilson, Appellants. . Heard

Page 864

433 S.E.2d 864 315 S.C. 289 The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Ronald Monroe WILSON and Teresa Ann Wilson, Appellants. No. 23910. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard Jan. 6, 1992.
Decided July 19, 1993.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 17, 1993.

Page 865

[315 S.C. 290] Douglas S. Strickler, Columbia, for appellants.

Attorney Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Cameron Currie, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr. and Miller W. Shealy, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.

TOAL, Justice:

Appellants, Ronald Monroe Wilson and Teresa Ann Wilson, were convicted and sentenced for conspiring to traffic in cocaine, conspiring to traffic in marijuana, and trafficking in cocaine under an indictment returned by the State Grand Jury. We affirm the conspiracy counts and vacate the substantive trafficking conviction.

Page 866

On December 12, 1989, the State Grand Jury indicted Appellants and several other individuals in Count One of an indictment under S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-370(e)(2)(e) (Supp.1992), alleging that beginning in 1982 and continuing to the date of the indictment, Appellants knowingly, unlawfully, and [315 S.C. 291] willfully conspired, confederated, agreed, and had a tacit understanding with each other and/or with other persons for the purpose of selling, delivering, or bringing into this state, or providing delivery or bringing into this state, or the knowing actual or constructive possession of more than 400 grams of cocaine in several counties in the State of South Carolina. Count Two was identical except the conspiracy was alleged to have begun in 1979 and involved marijuana in violation of S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-370(e)(1)(b) (Supp.1992). Several other defendants were named in the marijuana conspiracy.

Count Six of the same indictment alleged Appellants and two other individuals in Richland County violated section 44-53-370 by selling, delivering, or bringing into this state or providing financial assistance or otherwise aiding or abetting the sale or delivery or bringing into this state or by knowingly being in actual or constructive possession of more than ten grams of cocaine on about November 22, 1989.

Appellants made pre-trial motions as to Counts One, Two, and Six, including a motion to quash the indictments which the trial court denied. Appellants were convicted of conspiring to traffic in cocaine, 28 grams or more but less than 100 grams. Appellants were convicted as charged on Counts Two and Six. Appellants appeal their convictions on all three counts.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Appellants first allege the trial court erred in denying their motion to quash Count Six on the ground that it contained insufficient information to establish subject matter jurisdiction of the State Grand Jury. We agree.

The State Grand Jury was created to improve the State's ability to "detect and eliminate" multi-county criminal activity. S.C.Code Ann. 14-7-1610 (Supp.1992). To this end, the Grand Jury has statewide authority but its jurisdiction is limited to certain offenses. S.C.Code Ann. § 14-7-1630(A) (Supp.1992). Furthermore, its jurisdiction over some enumerated offenses is limited to those which "are of a multi-county nature or have transpired or are transpiring or have significance in more than one county of this State." S.C.Code Ann. § 14-7-1630(A)(1) (Supp.1992).

[315 S.C. 292] Facts supporting the Grand Jury's jurisdiction must be set forth in the indictment. State v. McIntire, 221 S.C. 504, 71 S.E.2d 410 (1952). We hold Count Six is fatally defective in that it alleges an offense occurring in Richland County and fails to allege that the offense charged has significance in other counties as multi-county impact is necessary to establish jurisdiction of the State Grand Jury. See McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla.1978). Accordingly, we vacate the convictions and sentences of the Appellants on Count Six. In so doing, we stress the State Grand Jury may properly return an indictment alleging a single-county offense. However, such a charge conveys subject matter jurisdiction only when the offense has multi-county significance and the indictment contains this allegation.

EX POST FACTO PROHIBITIONS

The Constitutions of the United States and of South Carolina specifically prohibit the passage of ex post facto laws. U.S. Const. art. 1, § 10; S.C. Const. art. 1, § 4. For a law to fall within ex post facto prohibitions, two critical elements must be present. First, the law must be retrospective so as to apply to events occurring before its enactment. Second, the law must disadvantage the offender affected by it. State v. Huiett, 302 S.C. 169, 394 S.E.2d 486 (1990) [quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981) ].

Appellants argue that the specific crime of trafficking in marijuana by conspiracy was not created until 1981, which was after the conspiracy alleged in Count

Page 867

Two came into existence. Therefore, they claim the count should have been quashed as it violated their ex post facto rights by punishing them for acts which were not prohibited at the time they were committed. We disagree. A conspiracy is a combination or agreement between two or more persons for the purpose of accomplishing a criminal or unlawful object, or achieving by criminal or unlawful means an object that is neither criminal nor unlawful. S.C.Code Ann. § 16-17-410 (1985); State v. Ameker 73 S.C. 330, 53 S.E. 484 (1906). The essence of a conspiracy is the agreement. State v....