 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
CITY OF CAMDEN v. BRASSELL4/21/1997
of
that case persuasive in our determination that the
D.U.I. ordinance is similarly "traffic in nature".
Also, persuasive is the Legislature's statutory
placement of the crime of
We, therefore, hold jurisdiction of juveniles
charged with a violation of a municipal D.U.I.
ordinance is properly within the municipal court.
Fanshier, 620 P.2d at 1348-49.
The concernment of the Court in the case sub judice is to give efficacy to the term "traffic violation" as used in § 20-7-410.
It is apodictic that an interpretation of the statutory phrase "traffic violation" is determinative of the issue posited in this case. The General Assembly encapsulates S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2930 (Rev. 1991 & Supp. 1996) in Chapter Five of Title 56 of the South Carolina Code, thereby giving some credence and indicia to the contention
CONCLUSION
We hold that
REVERSED.
HOWELL, C.J., and GOOLSBY, J., concur.
|