State v. Jackson

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Jackson

341 S.E.2d 375, 288 S.C. 94, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 294

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 5, 1986

Docket22490

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 341 S.E.2d 375 (State v. Jackson) 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. Jackson, 341 S.E.2d 375, 288 S.C. 94, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 294 (S.C. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Harwell, Justice:

Appellant contends that the lower court erred in proceeding with her trial in absentia. We agree and reverse and remand.

Appellant was convicted of robbery as well as assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. Prior to trial, appellant was granted bail and released from custody. Appellant did not appear for her trial and did not respond when the bailiff called her name throughout the courthouse just before her trial. Appellant was tried and convicted in her absence. She was represented at trial by counsel. Subsequently, appellant was apprehended and brought into court for sentencing.

Rule Three (3) of the Criminal Practice Rules (formerly Circuit Court Rule 35) provides:

Except in cases wherein capital punishment is a permissible sentence, persons indicted for misdemeanors and/or felonies may voluntarily waive their right to be present and may be tried in their absence upon a finding by the court that such person has received notice of *96 his or her right to be present and that a warning was given that the trial would proceed in his or her absence upon a failure to attend court.

The proper course of action in this case would have been for the trial judge, before appellant’s trial in absentia began, to make findings of fact regarding 1) whether the appellant had received notice of her right to be present, and 2) whether the appellant had been warned that the trial would proceed in her absence upon a failure to attend court. From a review of the record, it is evident that was not done. This was error. State v. Fleming, 287 S. C. 268, 335 S. E. (2d) 814 (Ct. App. 1985).

Reversed and remanded.

Ness, C. J., and Gregory, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.

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

Harwell, Justice:

Appellant contends that the lower court erred in proceeding with her trial in absentia. We agree and reverse and remand.

Appellant was convicted of robbery as well as assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. Prior to trial, appellant was granted bail and released from custody. Appellant did not appear for her trial and did not respond when the bailiff called her name throughout the courthouse just before her trial. Appellant was tried and convicted in her absence. She was represented at trial by counsel. Subsequently, appellant was apprehended and brought into court for sentencing.

Rule Three (3) of the Criminal Practice Rules (formerly Circuit Court Rule 35) provides:

Except in cases wherein capital punishment is a permissible sentence, persons indicted for misdemeanors and/or felonies may voluntarily waive their right to be present and may be tried in their absence upon a finding by the court that such person has received notice of *96 his or her right to be present and that a warning was given that the trial would proceed in his or her absence upon a failure to attend court.

The proper course of action in this case would have been for the trial judge, before appellant’s trial in absentia began, to make findings of fact regarding 1) whether the appellant had received notice of her right to be present, and 2) whether the appellant had been warned that the trial would proceed in her absence upon a failure to attend court. From a review of the record, it is evident that was not done. This was error. State v. Fleming, 287 S. C. 268, 335 S. E. (2d) 814 (Ct. App. 1985).

Reversed and remanded.

Ness, C. J., and Gregory, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 S.E.2d 375, 288 S.C. 94, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jackson-sc-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack