State v. Garrett

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Garrett

42 S.E. 108, 64 S.C. 249, 1902 S.C. LEXIS 124

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 19, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 S.E. 108 (State v. Garrett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Garrett, 42 S.E. 108, 64 S.C. 249, 1902 S.C. LEXIS 124 (S.C. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Pope.

Indictment against defendant for larceny and entering house without breaking, with intent to commit a crime, at the February term, 1901, of the Court of General Sessions for Laurens County, S. C., was found by grand jury. Defendant moved to- quash indictment on the ground that the grand jury which found “true bill” was not a legal grand jury, as the law authorizing the same was unconstitutional and void, so far as Laurens County is concerned, because at variance with the provisions of subdivision 8 of sec. 34, of art. III., of the Constitution of this State. Motion was denied. Trial resulted in verdict of guilty and sentence was pronounced. The defendant, before sentence, moved in arrest of judgment on the same ground submitted to quash venire of grand jury. Motion was refused.

The defendant appeals from judgment on the grounds of error of Circuit Judge in refusing to quash indictment and also ini arrest of judgment. The appeal must be sustained. The case is ruled by the State v. Queen, 62 S. C., 247, and other cases deciding such jury laws unconstitutional.

It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Pope.

Indictment against defendant for larceny and entering house without breaking, with intent to commit a crime, at the February term, 1901, of the Court of General Sessions for Laurens County, S. C., was found by grand jury. Defendant moved to- quash indictment on the ground that the grand jury which found “true bill” was not a legal grand jury, as the law authorizing the same was unconstitutional and void, so far as Laurens County is concerned, because at variance with the provisions of subdivision 8 of sec. 34, of art. III., of the Constitution of this State. Motion was denied. Trial resulted in verdict of guilty and sentence was pronounced. The defendant, before sentence, moved in arrest of judgment on the same ground submitted to quash venire of grand jury. Motion was refused.

The defendant appeals from judgment on the grounds of error of Circuit Judge in refusing to quash indictment and also ini arrest of judgment. The appeal must be sustained. The case is ruled by the State v. Queen, 62 S. C., 247, and other cases deciding such jury laws unconstitutional.

It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 S.E. 108, 64 S.C. 249, 1902 S.C. LEXIS 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-garrett-sc-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack