 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Green1/31/2005
, Green argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the indictment alleged he committed the offense at a time he was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the family court. As drafted, this count of the indictment originally alleged the offenses occurred beginning when Green was just two years old. However, as evidence the dates were scrivener's errors, the State noted the victim was not even born during part of the time originally alleged in the indictment. Again, these errors necessitated, and were corrected by, the amendment at the beginning of trial.
After the amendment, however, this count of the indictment still alleged conduct occurring before Green's sixteenth birthday. The court of general sessions has subject matter jurisdiction over charges alleging CSC with a minor in the first degree. S.C. Code § 16-3-655(1). However, under the children's code it typically lacks jurisdiction over individuals under the age of seventeen, with certain exceptions. See S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-7605 (Supp. 2003) (requiring the circuit court, with certain exceptions, to transfer to the family court the case of any child under the age of seventeen who is being criminally prosecuted). Notwithstanding this general rule, a person sixteen years of age or older who is charged with a Class A, B, C, or D felony is not a child within the meaning of the juvenile justice article of the children's code, which includes section 20-7-7605. S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-6605(1) (Supp. 2003). Criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree is a Class A felony. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-1-90 (Supp. 2003). In accordance with these provisions, the trial court amended the first-degree charge after the State rested to include only those dates in which Green was sixteen years of age or older. The court also advised it would instruct the jury to only consider allegations on or after that date in rendering its verdict on this charge. This amendment, like the one at the beginning of the trial, changed dates only, not the nature of the offense charged. Also, because of the amendment and instruction, Green's conviction and sentence on this charge only concerned conduct on or after his sixteenth birthday. Thus, in my opinion the trial court had both subject matter and personal jurisdiction to try Green and I would affirm the conviction.
|