Williams v. State, 23501
| Decision Date | 28 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 23501,23501 |
| Citation | 306 S.C. 89,410 S.E.2d 563 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Moses WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Assistant Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.
Attorney General T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, and Staff Atty., Lisa G. Jefferson, Columbia, for respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
We granted certiorari to review the denial of post-conviction relief to Petitioner, Moses Williams, Jr. (Williams).
We reverse.
On February 24, 1989, Williams, involved in an argument with his girlfriend, stabbed her with a barbecue fork. He was indicted for assault and battery with intent to kill (ABIK), and for "visibly displaying what appeared to be a knife" during commission of the ABIK.
Williams, pro se, pled guilty to both charges and was sentenced, respectively, to fifteen years and five years, consecutive.
Did the trial court have subject matter jurisdiction to accept Williams' plea to "visibly displaying what appeared to be a knife" during commission of the ABIK?
S.C.Code Ann. § 16-23-490 (Cum.Supp.1990) provides additional punishment for possessiong certain specified weapons during commission of a violent crime, 1 stating in part:
Any person who is convicted of committing ... a violent crime.... or visibly displays what appears to be a firearm or visibly displays a knife during the commission of the violent crime, shall ... be punished by a term of imprisonment of five years.... (Emphasis supplied).
A "knife" is defined in the statute as "an instrument or tool consisting of a sharp cutting blade ... capable of being used to inflict a cut, slash, or wound." (Emphasis supplied).
While a barbecue fork is an instrument capable of inflicting a wound, it has no sharp cutting blade; it, therefore, is not a "knife" within the meaning of the statute.
The remaining inquiry is whether Williams is subject to additional punishment for visibly displaying what appears to be a knife. We hold he is not.
Penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and in favor of the defendant. State v. Cutler, 274 S.C. 376, 264 S.E.2d 420 (1980). As was aptly summarized by Chief Justice Marshall in United States v. Wiltberger, (18 U.S.) 5 Wheaton 76, 95-96, 5 L.Ed. 37, 42 (1820):
The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly, is perhaps not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department. It is the legislature, not the court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment....
The intention of the legislature is to be collected from the words they employ. Where there is no ambiguity in the words, there is no room for construction. The case must be a strong one indeed, which would justify a court in departing from the plain meaning of words, especially in a penal act, in search of an intention which the words themselves did not suggest. To determine that a case is within the intention of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitner v. State
...Carolina law, a circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea to a nonexistent offense. See Williams v. State, 306 S.C. 89, 410 S.E.2d 563 (1991). For the sentencing court to have had subject matter jurisdiction to accept Whitner's plea, criminal child neglect unde......
-
Scott v. State, 24901.
...741 (1985). Furthermore, penal statutes must be construed strictly against the State in favor of the defendant. Williams v. State, 306 S.C. 89, 410 S.E.2d 563 (1991). The Court of Appeals, in deciding that a bond forfeiture in a traffic case may not be used as an admission or for impeachmen......
-
State v. Dickinson
...We are reminded that we must strictly construe criminal statutes against the state and in favor of the defendant. Williams v. State, 306 S.C. 89, 91, 410 S.E.2d 563, 564 (1991); State v. Prince, 335 S.C. 466, 472, 517 S.E.2d 229, 232 (Ct.App. 1999). However, the cardinal rule of statutory c......
-
Brown v. State
...First and foremost, a penal statute must be construed strictly against the State and in favor of the defendant. Williams v. State, 306 S.C. 89, 91, 410 S.E.2d 563, 564 (1991). "`The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly ... is founded ... on the plain principle that the power of......