Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Reddick

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided February 19, 2002No. 3448Published

1DissentHoward, Judge

I respectfully disagree with the majority as to the sufficiency of the indictment. The body of the indictment does not allege that Reddick is an inmate, nor does the indictment allege his status as an inmate in any similar language. Consequently, I would hold that the court did not have jurisdiction to try Reddick for this offense.

The caption of the indictment cannot be used to expand or contract the allegations, because it is not a part of the findings by the grand jury. State v. Lark, 64 S.C. 350, 353, 42 S.E. 175, 176-77 (1902); State v. Knuckles, 348 S.C. 593, 597-98, 560 S.E.2d 426,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. AdamsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1981
  2. State v. OwensSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2001
  3. State v. GunnSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
  4. State v. HiottSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1981
  5. State v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2001

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API