 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Campbell11/8/2004
law, to wit: a Motor Vehicle Accident caused by the Defendant's driving while under the influence of alcohol, which act and/or neglect proximately cuased[sic] the death of Kevin Tremain Shook in violation of §56-5-2945(A)(2)....
(emphasis in original).
Campbell contends the indictment is fatally flawed because it "fails to allege an act forbidden by law or neglect of a duty imposed by law." Specifically, she argues that although the indictment includes the statutory language "did an act forbidden by law and/or neglected a duty imposed by law," it fails to describe the specific act and/or neglected duty on which the State relied to support the felony D.U.I. charge.
The general rule regarding the adequacy of an indictment is that "[a]n indictment is sufficient if the offense is stated with sufficient certainty and particularity to enable the court to know what judgment to pronounce, and the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer and whether he may plead an acquittal or conviction thereon." State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 364, 580 S.E.2d 785, 791 (Ct. App. 2003). Furthermore, "[t]he true test of the sufficiency of an indictment is not whether it could be made more definite and certain, but whether it contains the necessary elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet." Browning v. State, 320 S.C. 366, 368, 465 S.E.2d 358, 359 (1995) (citing State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 357 S.E.2d 461 (1987)).
An indictment is sufficient when it uses substantially the same language contained in the statute prohibiting the crime charged, or when it is described in such a way that the nature of the charge is plainly understood. State v. Reddick, 348 S.C. 631, 635, 560 S.E.2d 441, 443 (Ct. App. 2002). When examining the sufficiency of an indictment, "this court should 'look at the issue with a practical eye in view of the surrounding circumstances.'" State v. Barnett, 358 S.C. 199, 202, 594 S.E.2d 534, 535 (Ct. App. 2004) (citing State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 130, 437 S.E.2d 75, 78 (1993)).
Even a cursory reading of the indictment in the current case shows it contains virtually identical language to that contained in the statute defining the offense. In addition, because Campbell pled guilty, it is clear she was aware of the nature of the charge against her. A thorough review of the record discloses no indications of uncertainty in regard to the crime with which she was charged. Accordingly, as the indictment adequately alleged the elements of the offense, we find the indictment was sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the circuit court.
Because we find the indictment sufficient, we need not address Campbell's remaining argument concerning double jeopardy. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (ruling appellate court need not review remaining issues when disposition of prior issues are dispositive); Rule 220(c), SCACR ("[t]he appellate court may affirm any ruling, order, or judgment upon any ground(s) appearing in Record on Appeal").
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|