State v. Riddle

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Riddle

387 S.E.2d 455, 300 S.C. 268, 1990 S.C. LEXIS 7

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 2, 1990

Docket23127

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 387 S.E.2d 455 (State v. Riddle) 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. Riddle, 387 S.E.2d 455, 300 S.C. 268, 1990 S.C. LEXIS 7 (S.C. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Chandler, Justice:

Appellant, Bruce Eugene Riddle (Riddle), contends the Circuit Court erred in permitting an amendment to his indictment during the course of trial. We agree and reverse.

Riddle was indicted for assault with intent to commit third-degree criminal sexual conduct. At the close of evidence, the indictment was amended to charge assault with intent to commit first degree criminal sexual conduct. The sole issue we address is whether the amendment was proper.

S. C. Code Ann. § 17-19-100 (1976) permits amendment of an indictment provided the nature of the offense charged is not changed. Here, the amendment increases the lesser charge of assault with intent to commit third degree criminal sexual conduct to the greater charge of assault with intent to commit first degree criminal sexual conduct. Punishment for third degree may not exceed ten years, while first degree is punishable by up to thirty years.

The amendment clearly exceeded the terms of the statute.

Appellant’s second issue is affirmed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23; State v. Lyle, 125 S. C. 406, 118 S. E. 803 (1923).

Reversed and remanded.

Gregory, C. J., and Harwell, Finney and Toal, JJ., concur.

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