 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kelsey6/8/1998
3, 314 S.E.2d 319 (1984)(transfer upheld where defendant was charged with two counts of murder and two counts of assault and battery with intent to kill); State v. Wright, 269 S.C. 414, 237 S.E.2d 764 (1977)(transfer upheld where defendants were charged with armed robbery and assault and battery with intent to kill).
In this case, the family court's transfer hearing was extensive. It not only included the testimony of relevant witnesses, including Kelsey, but also the submission of a lengthy preadjudicatory transfer evaluation. Additionally, the family court's transfer order was detailed. and raised the following points: (1) Kelsey was charged with the serious and violent offense of murder, and the victim was a young girl; (2) it was likely that the Grand Jury would return an indictment against Kelsey; (3) Kelsey's two co-defendant's were going to be tried in the Court of General Sessions; (4) if tried as a minor, Kelsey would only get 24 to 54 months if convicted of the murder charge -- this was not in the community's best interest due to the seriousness of the States Attorney). (5) The desirability of trial and Disposition of the entire offense in one court when the juvenile's associates in the alleged offense are adults who will be charged with a crime in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. (6) The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living. (7) The record and previous history of the juvenile, including previous contacts with the Youth Aid Division, other law enforcement agencies, juvenile courts and other jurisdictions, prior periods of probation to this Court, or prior commitments to juvenile institutions. (8) The prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile (if he is found to have committed the alleged offense by the use of procedures, services and facilities currently available to the Juvenile Court.
We therefore find the family court properly transferred jurisdiction to the Court of General Sessions pursuant to section 20-7-430.
III. CHANGE OF VENUE
Kelsey argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for change of venue due to the enormous amount of pretrial publicity surrounding his case. We disagree.
During voir dire, the trial Judge asked all of the prospective jurors whether they had heard anything about the case through the news media. Of the ninety prospective jurors, seventy-nine indicated that they had heard something about the case. The trial Judge then asked these prospective jurors whether they could put aside what they had heard and base their verdict on the evidence presented at trial. Thirty-five indicated that they could not and were consequently excused by the trial Judge. The trial Judge further questioned three of the remaining jurors after defense counsel expressed concern about their initial responses. After voir dire was completed, the defense renewed its motion for a change of venue. The trial judge denied the motion, stating:
My sound instinct though tells me that just because these people have heard about the case doesn't have to necessarily mean that they have formed some opinion about the case. To do that I think would have to, in essence, assume that they believed everything they had seen or read and that, in essence, they were some sort of automatons that were dictated to by the news media. I don't think I can go that far.
Of the twelve jurors finally seated, three had not heard anything about the case.
Kelsey argues that the media attention surrounding his case was so great
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|