State v. Staggers

525 S.E.2d 260, 338 S.C. 53, 1999 S.C. App. LEXIS 168
CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedNovember 29, 1999
DocketNo. 3080
StatusPublished

This text of 525 S.E.2d 260 (State v. Staggers) 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. Staggers, 525 S.E.2d 260, 338 S.C. 53, 1999 S.C. App. LEXIS 168 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

GOOLSBY, Judge:

An indictment, whose caption reads, “Indictment for Burglary, First Degree,” alleges the appellant, Willie Staggers, Jr.,

did in Charleston County on or about the 29th day of December, 1997, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously enter the residence of Gertrude Cercopely located at 3435 Navajo Street, N. Charleston, South Carolina, at approximately 2316 hours, without the consent of the owner and with the intent to commit a crime therein ... in violation of Section 16-11-311 of the South Carolina Code of Laws (1976), as amended.

Staggers argues the indictment is insufficient on its face to allege a first-degree burglary offense because it does not allege the entering occurred “in the nighttime.”1 Under section 16-11-311(A), “entering ... in the nighttime” is an aggravating circumstance that makes a burglary one in the first degree.2

[55]*55When we, as we must, view the indictment in question with a practical eye and weigh all the surrounding circumstances,3 it becomes readily apparent that Staggers’ argument is totally without merit.

“Although the early common law required that the hour of committing the crime be alleged in the indictment, the rule now is that it is not necessary in charging night burglary to aver the particular hour of the night; it is sufficient to aver that the crime was committed in the nighttime.”4 If a statute does not change the common law offense regarding the time of breaking and entering, “an indictment must allege in express terms or otherwise show on its face, that the breaking and entering were in the nighttime.”5

Here, the indictment otherwise shows on its face that the breaking and entering occurred in the nighttime. It does so by alleging the very hour and minute the burglary occurred: “2316 hours,” or in other words, 11:16 o’clock p.m.6 A burglary that occurred on December 29, 1997, at 11:16 p.m. in Charleston, South Carolina, could only have occurred in the “nighttime.”

AFFIRMED.

HOWELL, C.J., and HEARN, J., concur.

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

Related

Fearn v. City of Huntsville
568 So. 2d 349 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1990)
State v. Adams
283 S.E.2d 582 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
525 S.E.2d 260, 338 S.C. 53, 1999 S.C. App. LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-staggers-scctapp-1999.