Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • W. Newton Pough, of Orangeburg, for Appellant, cites: As to the Court's having erred in denying the defendant's (Appellant herein) Motion for a Dismissal or in the alternative, a mistrial on the grounds that the Berkeley County Grand Jury was without authority to return an Indictment: 356 U.S. 405, 78 S.Ct. 875; 3 Hill Law 91; 128 S.E.2d 154; 21 Am. Jur.2d 419, Sec. 403; 153 F. 1, 209 U.S. 56, 52 L.Ed. 681, 28 S.Ct. 428; 387 U.S. 556, 18 L.Ed. 594, 87 S.Ct. 1746; 185 S.C. 341, 194 S.E.2d 160; 364 U.S. 631, 81 S.Ct. 358; 243 S.C. 187, 133 S.E.2d 210; I Strob. 155; 200 S.C. 504, 215 S.E.2d 178.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • W. Newton Pough, of Orangeburg, for Appellant, cites: As to the Court's having erred in denying the defendant's (Appellant herein) Motion for a Dismissal or in the alternative, a mistrial on the grounds that the Berkeley County Grand Jury was without authority to return an Indictment: 356 U.S. 405, 78 S.Ct. 875; 3 Hill Law 91; 128 S.E.2d 154; 21 Am. Jur.2d 419, Sec. 403; 153 F. 1, 209 U.S. 56, 52 L.Ed. 681, 28 S.Ct. 428; 387 U.S. 556, 18 L.Ed. 594, 87 S.Ct. 1746; 185 S.C. 341, 194 S.E.2d 160; 364 U.S. 631, 81 S.Ct. 358; 243 S.C. 187, 133 S.E.2d 210; I Strob. 155; 200 S.C. 504, 215 S.E.2d 178.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

The STATE, Respondent, v. Herman Martin GETHERS, Appellant.

July 13, 1977.

NESS, Justice.

Appellant was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. The prosecuting witness testified that she was abducted from Charleston County, taken into Berkeley County and raped, and returned to Charleston County.

Appellant asserts that the crime, if any, took place in Charleston County and that the indictment by the Berkeley County Grand Jury was void. He assigns error to the refusal to grant his motions for dismissal or a mistrial. We disagree.

A similar challenge to venue was raised in the recent case of State v. Allen, 266 S.C. 468, 224 S.E.2d 881 (1976) In Allen, the victim was abducted from Calhoun County and murdered, allegedly in Florence County. Although the defendant claimed the murder took place elsewhere, we found sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that the crime occurred in Florence County.

Moreover, we held in State v. Wharton, 263 S.C. 437, 441, 211 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1975),

"[I]t is not necessary in a criminal case that venue should be proved affirmatively if there is sufficient evidence from which it can be inferred."

Consistent with our decision in Allen, we find that venue was in Berkeley County.

Appellant's other exceptions are without merit.

Affirmed.

LEWIS, C.J., and LITTLEJOHN, RHODES and GREGORY, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

STATE v. GETHERS
(Jul 13, 1977)