Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Binnarr

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided May 9, 2012No. 27122Published

1DissentJustice Pleicones

I respectfully dissent. As I noted in concurrence with this Court’s recent decision affirming a conviction under S.C.Code Ann. § 23-3-470, State v. Latimore, 397 S.C. 9, 723 S.E.2d 589 (2012), I do not believe this situation is controlled by Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957), and actual notice is not required for conviction under that section. Indeed, as I noted in Latimore, the Court’s decision in that case turned on evidence of the petitioner’s constructive notice, not evidence of actual notice.

Constructive, or inquiry, notice is the legal imputation of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Lambert v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  2. United States v. GouldCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2009
  3. Strother v. Lexington County Recreation CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  4. City of Greenville v. Washington American League Baseball ClubSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1945
  5. State v. LatimoreSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API