State v. Harris

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Harris

232 S.E.2d 231, 268 S.C. 117, 1977 S.C. LEXIS 390

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedFebruary 3, 1977

Docket20353

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 232 S.E.2d 231 (State v. Harris) 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. Harris, 232 S.E.2d 231, 268 S.C. 117, 1977 S.C. LEXIS 390 (S.C. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Respondent was arrested and charged with assault with intent to ravish. A preliminary hearing was held in the matter at which time the investigating officer read into the record a statement given by the victim. Magistrate Oscar Zobel ruled that probable cause had been shown.

Respondent then moved to be allowed to depose the victim, the motion being granted by Order of Judge Nicholson. *119 Cited as authority for this ruling were Sections 16-73 and 16-74, S. C. Code Ann. (1962). The State appeals from this Order of the lower court. We reverse.

The two statutes in question were first enacted, along with several related sections, in 1909. These sections, taken together, provide that in a case of rape or assault with intent to ravish the victim’s testimony may be taken by deposition, and then read at trial, in lieu of the victim taking the stand. In construing a statute, all rules are subservient to the one which requires that the legislative intent prevail. McMillen Feed Mills, Inc., of S. C. v. Mayer, 265 S. C. 500, 220 S. E. (2d) 221 (1975). We think it clear that the legislative intent of the statutes in question was to provide a procedure by which the victim of a sexual assault could be spared the trauma of relating the details of the crime in open court. The sections were not intended to grant a defendant the right to cross-examine a victim prior to trial by a deposition proceeding.

Indeed, the judge in the lower court stated in his Order that “[i]t is doubtful that the procedure provided by this Code Section was, in fact, intended as a device for discovery.” And this Court has held that there is no constitutional or statutory right to such pretrial discovery in this State. State v. Flood, 257 S. C. 141, 184 S. E. (2d) 549 (1971).

For the foregoing reasons, the Order of the lower court is reversed.

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

Per Curiam:

Respondent was arrested and charged with assault with intent to ravish. A preliminary hearing was held in the matter at which time the investigating officer read into the record a statement given by the victim. Magistrate Oscar Zobel ruled that probable cause had been shown.

Respondent then moved to be allowed to depose the victim, the motion being granted by Order of Judge Nicholson. *119 Cited as authority for this ruling were Sections 16-73 and 16-74, S. C. Code Ann. (1962). The State appeals from this Order of the lower court. We reverse.

The two statutes in question were first enacted, along with several related sections, in 1909. These sections, taken together, provide that in a case of rape or assault with intent to ravish the victim’s testimony may be taken by deposition, and then read at trial, in lieu of the victim taking the stand. In construing a statute, all rules are subservient to the one which requires that the legislative intent prevail. McMillen Feed Mills, Inc., of S. C. v. Mayer, 265 S. C. 500, 220 S. E. (2d) 221 (1975). We think it clear that the legislative intent of the statutes in question was to provide a procedure by which the victim of a sexual assault could be spared the trauma of relating the details of the crime in open court. The sections were not intended to grant a defendant the right to cross-examine a victim prior to trial by a deposition proceeding.

Indeed, the judge in the lower court stated in his Order that “[i]t is doubtful that the procedure provided by this Code Section was, in fact, intended as a device for discovery.” And this Court has held that there is no constitutional or statutory right to such pretrial discovery in this State. State v. Flood, 257 S. C. 141, 184 S. E. (2d) 549 (1971).

For the foregoing reasons, the Order of the lower court is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 S.E.2d 231, 268 S.C. 117, 1977 S.C. LEXIS 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harris-sc-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack