State v. Smart

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Smart

DecidedJune 20, 2012

Docket2012-UP-371

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Smart (State v. Smart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Smart, (S.C. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXPECT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v. Thomas Smart, Appellant.

__________

Appeal From Horry County William H. Seals, Jr., Circuit Court Judge __________

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-371 Submitted June 1, 2012 – Filed June 20, 2012 __________

AFFIRMED __________

Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliot, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Thomas Smart was convicted of throwing bodily fluids on a law enforcement officer, failure to stop for a blue light, threatening a public official, and resisting arrest. On appeal, Smart argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on his charge of throwing bodily fluids in violation of section 24-13-470 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011), arguing his act of spitting blood on an arresting officer did not constitute throwing bodily fluids under the statute. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Jacobs, 393 S.C. 584, 587, 713 S.E.2d 621, 623 (2011) (explaining that, although penal statutes are strictly construed in favor of the defendant, the court must interpret the statute according to its literal meaning); State v. Morgan, 352 S.C. 359, 366, 574 S.E.2d 203, 206 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating if a statutory term is unclear, the court must interpret the term using its customary meaning within the context of the statute).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

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

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXPECT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v. Thomas Smart, Appellant.

__________

Appeal From Horry County William H. Seals, Jr., Circuit Court Judge __________

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-371 Submitted June 1, 2012 – Filed June 20, 2012 __________

AFFIRMED __________

Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliot, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Thomas Smart was convicted of throwing bodily fluids on a law enforcement officer, failure to stop for a blue light, threatening a public official, and resisting arrest. On appeal, Smart argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on his charge of throwing bodily fluids in violation of section 24-13-470 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011), arguing his act of spitting blood on an arresting officer did not constitute throwing bodily fluids under the statute. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Jacobs, 393 S.C. 584, 587, 713 S.E.2d 621, 623 (2011) (explaining that, although penal statutes are strictly construed in favor of the defendant, the court must interpret the statute according to its literal meaning); State v. Morgan, 352 S.C. 359, 366, 574 S.E.2d 203, 206 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating if a statutory term is unclear, the court must interpret the term using its customary meaning within the context of the statute).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Smart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smart-scctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack